buzzfeed--2020-07-11--The Supreme Court Ruled Prosecutors In New York Can Get Trump’s Tax Returns

Trump slammed both decisions , tweeting : “ Courts in the past have given ‘ broad deference ’ .
BUT NOT ME !
” Responding to the decision in the grand jury subpoena case , he tweeted that it was “ all a political prosecution ” and that it was “ not fair ” that he had “ to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York.
” Roberts also wrote the 7–2 opinion in the congressional subpoenas case , joined by the court ’ s liberal wing again as well as Kavanaugh and Gorsuch .
Although the court didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the committees could win in the end , it ’ s still something of a victory for Trump because it at least delays the issue .
Democrats have been trying to get his financial records for more than a year .
In a separate decision also released on Thursday , the court revived a fight between Trump and House Democrats over congressional subpoenas for Trump ’ s financial records — a majority of the court ruled that the lower courts , which had sided with the congressional committees , failed to fully consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and kicked the cases back down for more proceedings .
The majority decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. , who was joined by the justices from the court ’ s liberal arm .
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch , Trump 's two nominees to the court , agreed that Trump was not absolutely immune from the subpoena .
The New York case centered on a grand jury subpoena for eight years of Trump 's tax returns as part of an investigation by New York District Attorney Cy Vance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payments made to two women , Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal , who claimed to have had affairs with Trump before he took office .
Thursday ’ s decision does not mean the public will get to see Trump ’ s tax returns , however .
By law , documents subpoenaed as part of grand jury investigations are secret , though they could later become public if used as evidence in trial .
Trump has refused to release his tax returns , first as a candidate and later as president .
The decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that as president he should be completely immune from a grand jury subpoena , and to the Justice Department , which didn ’ t embrace Trump ’ s immunity argument but pushed for a higher standard for state prosecutors to meet before they could get the president ’ s records .
WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that state prosecutors in New York can subpoena years of President Donald Trump ’ s tax returns .
Vance said in a statement that Thursday ’ s ruling was a “ tremendous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of justice and its founding principle that no one – not even a president – is above the law.
” “ Our investigation , which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit , will resume , guided as always by the grand jury ’ s solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts , wherever they may lead , ” Vance said .
House Democrats vowed to continue to press their subpoenas in the lower courts .
Rep. Adam Schiff , chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued subpoenas for Trump 's financial records , said in a statement that they were disappointed the court had adopted a new standard for weighing these types of congressional subpoenas going forward .
`` The Supreme Court ’ s remand of this case to permit the lower courts to apply the new standard will serve to delay the Committee ’ s investigation — and , given the risk of foreign influence over this President , such delay is dangerous — but we remain confident that we will ultimately prevail .
And in light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning , he appears to believe the same , '' Schiff said .
In the grand jury subpoena case , Roberts wrote that there was a long history of legal precedent to support the idea that sitting presidents can be subpoenaed , going back to the early 1800s .
Addressing Trump ’ s position that a president should be immune specifically against a grand jury subpoena in a state criminal investigation , Roberts rejected Trump ’ s arguments that this type of subpoena would distract from his official duties , create a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and make him a target for harassment .
“ To be sure , the consequences for a President ’ s public standing will likely increase if he is the one under investigation .
But , again , the President concedes that such investigations are permitted under Article II and the Supremacy Clause , and receipt of a subpoena would not seem to categorically magnify the harm to the President ’ s reputation , ” Roberts wrote .
The Justice Department had argued that a grand jury subpoena for a sitting president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ heightened need standard ” — that prosecutors should have to show that the documents were necessary for specific charging decisions and that the subpoena was the only option to get them .
But Roberts noted that Trump hadn ’ t claimed executive privilege over the documents and wrote that private records shouldn ’ t get the same protection as official records .
Roberts wrote that Trump still had options to challenge the grand jury subpoena — he could raise the same types of legal challenges that any other person could make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a criminal investigation , and he could even make arguments specific to his position as president , such as that a grand jury subpoena was intended to interfere with his official duties .
“ Two hundred years ago , a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen , not even the President , is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding .
We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of need , ” Robert wrote .
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch didn ’ t join the entirety of Roberts ’ opinion , but agreed that Trump was not absolutely immune .
Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion , joined by Gorsuch , that in any future challenge raised by Trump or another president to this type of subpoena , they would have adopted a different , stricter standard for judging whether prosecutors could get a president ’ s records .
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. wrote dissenting opinions saying they would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to meet before being able to subpoena and actually get a sitting president ’ s records .
In the case of the congressional subpoena , Roberts again began with a history lesson , noting that fights between the executive and legislative branches over access to documents stretched back to President George Washington .
But until recently , he wrote , the two branches had worked things out among themselves and not involved the courts .
Roberts rejected Trump and the Justice Department ’ s arguments that congressional subpoenas for a president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more “ demanding ” standard that the court had adopted before in cases involving former president Richard Nixon ’ s White House tapes during the Watergate scandal .
Trump ’ s financial records were personal and not related to his job as president , and there was no claim of executive privilege , Roberts wrote .
“ The standards proposed by the President and the Solicitor General—if applied outside the context of privileged information—would risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities , ” Roberts wrote .
But he wrote that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president and couldn ’ t be treated like any other congressional demand for documents .
“ Far from accounting for separation of powers concerns , the House ’ s approach aggravates them by leaving essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the President ’ s personal records , ” Roberts wrote .
Quoting from Alexander Hamilton ’ s Federalist Papers , he continued : “ Without limits on its subpoena powers , Congress could ‘ exert an imperious controul ’ over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feared.
” Roberts laid out a four-part standard for how the lower courts should consider the separation of powers issue going forward .
He wrote that judges should consider if Congress “ reasonably ” could get the information elsewhere ; insist that a subpoena only demand documents that are “ reasonably necessary ” to fulfill Congress ’ legislative goals ; “ be attentive ” to how much specific evidence Congress gives to show it needs the records to carry out a legislative purpose ; and , finally , “ carefully ” consider the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
Thomas dissented , writing that he believed Congress had no power to issue a legislative subpoena for anyone ’ s private documents , whether or not they were related to a president .
If Congress wanted documents from a president , it had to be in the context of impeachment , Thomas wrote .
Alito wrote his own dissent , saying he agreed with the majority that Congress could subpoena a president ’ s documents , but he didn ’ t think Roberts ’ test was strict enough .
The justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a trio of lawsuits that Trump filed trying to shield his tax returns and other financial records .
Two of the cases involved subpoenas issued by House Democrats , and the third involved a grand jury subpoena issued as part of a criminal investigation by Vance .
The subpoenas were sent to financial institutions that held Trump 's records — accounting firm Mazars USA , Deutsche Bank , and Capital One — but the companies declined to take a position , leaving it up to their client , Trump , to duke it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's office .
Trump repeatedly lost in the lower courts , but the Supreme Court paused rulings that would have forced Mazars and the banks to turn over records when the justices agreed to hear the case in December .
During arguments before the Supreme Court , Trump ’ s lawyer tried to distinguish his situation from cases that former presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ultimately lost when they went before the court to fight efforts to probe their affairs .
The Supreme Court ruled in 1974 that a grand jury could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the White House , rejecting his immunity argument .
Two decades later , the court ruled in 1997 that Clinton was not immune from facing a civil lawsuit in state court related to issues that predated his presidency .
In the New York district attorney 's case , Trump 's personal attorneys argued that he should be protected by absolute immunity from any criminal investigation while he 's in office .
The Justice Department , which has backed Trump but did n't push the absolute immunity argument , instead argued that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to subpoena information about a president to first go to court and meet a high standard for proving they had a special need to do so .
In the congressional subpoena cases , Trump argued that the Democrat-led committees lacked legislative authority to investigate him and demand his records .
House Democrats argued that their authority to issue subpoenas was `` extremely broad '' and that they did n't have to articulate up front exactly what legislation they were considering in order to carry out an investigation .
Three Democrat-led House committees subpoenaed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and each offered its own reasons for doing so .
The Committee on Oversight and Reform said it wanted to explore whether Trump committed crimes before taking office , whether he had undisclosed conflicts of interest , whether he was complying with a constitutional prohibition against accepting financial benefits ( known as the Emoluments Clauses ) , and whether he ’ d complied with financial disclosure rules .
The Committee on Financial Services indicated it was interested in probing how US regulators enforced anti–money laundering laws , and the subpoenas would shed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questionable ” financing provided by banks to Trump and his company .
And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence said it wanted Trump ’ s records as part of a broader investigation into Russian influence in US political systems , and specifically whether foreign actors had leverage over Trump , his campaign , his businesses , or his family members .
Two federal appeals courts — the DC Circuit and the 2nd Circuit — ruled in favor of House Democrats .
This is a developing story .
Check this post for updates @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Vance said in a statement that Thursday’s ruling was a “tremendous victory for our nation’s system of justice and its founding principle that no one – not even a president – is above the law.”
“Our investigation, which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit, will resume, guided as always by the grand jury’s solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they may lead,” Vance said.
House Democrats vowed to continue to press their subpoenas in the lower courts. Rep. Adam Schiff, chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, one of the three committees that issued subpoenas for Trump's financial records, said in a statement that they were disappointed the court had adopted a new standard for weighing these types of congressional subpoenas going forward.
"The Supreme Court’s remand of this case to permit the lower courts to apply the new standard will serve to delay the Committee’s investigation — and, given the risk of foreign influence over this President, such delay is dangerous — but we remain confident that we will ultimately prevail. And in light of the President’s tweets this morning, he appears to believe the same," Schiff said.
The New York Case
In the grand jury subpoena case, Roberts wrote that there was a long history of legal precedent to support the idea that sitting presidents can be subpoenaed, going back to the early 1800s. Addressing Trump’s position that a president should be immune specifically against a grand jury subpoena in a state criminal investigation, Roberts rejected Trump’s arguments that this type of subpoena would distract from his official duties, create a “stigma” that would undermine his authority, and make him a target for harassment.
“To be sure, the consequences for a President’s public standing will likely increase if he is the one under investigation. But, again, the President concedes that such investigations are permitted under Article II and the Supremacy Clause, and receipt of a subpoena would not seem to categorically magnify the harm to the President’s reputation,” Roberts wrote.
The Justice Department had argued that a grand jury subpoena for a sitting president’s personal records should have to meet a “heightened need standard” — that prosecutors should have to show that the documents were necessary for specific charging decisions and that the subpoena was the only option to get them. But Roberts noted that Trump hadn’t claimed executive privilege over the documents and wrote that private records shouldn’t get the same protection as official records.
Roberts wrote that Trump still had options to challenge the grand jury subpoena — he could raise the same types of legal challenges that any other person could make when facing a demand for documents in a criminal investigation, and he could even make arguments specific to his position as president, such as that a grand jury subpoena was intended to interfere with his official duties.
“Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding. We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need,” Robert wrote.
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch didn’t join the entirety of Roberts’ opinion, but agreed that Trump was not absolutely immune. Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion, joined by Gorsuch, that in any future challenge raised by Trump or another president to this type of subpoena, they would have adopted a different, stricter standard for judging whether prosecutors could get a president’s records.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. wrote dissenting opinions saying they would have adopted stricter standards that prosecutors would have to meet before being able to subpoena and actually get a sitting president’s records.
The House Case
In the case of the congressional subpoena, Roberts again began with a history lesson, noting that fights between the executive and legislative branches over access to documents stretched back to President George Washington. But until recently, he wrote, the two branches had worked things out among themselves and not involved the courts.
Roberts rejected Trump and the Justice Department’s arguments that congressional subpoenas for a president’s personal records should be held to a more “demanding” standard that the court had adopted before in cases involving former president Richard Nixon’s White House tapes during the Watergate scandal. Trump’s financial records were personal and not related to his job as president, and there was no claim of executive privilege, Roberts wrote.
“The standards proposed by the President and the Solicitor General—if applied outside the context of privileged information—would risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities,” Roberts wrote.
But he wrote that it mattered that these subpoenas involved a sitting president and couldn’t be treated like any other congressional demand for documents.
“Far from accounting for separation of powers concerns, the House’s approach aggravates them by leaving essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the President’s personal records,” Roberts wrote. Quoting from Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers, he continued: “Without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could ‘exert an imperious controul’ over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President’s expense, just as the Framers feared.”
Roberts laid out a four-part standard for how the lower courts should consider the separation of powers issue going forward. He wrote that judges should consider if Congress “reasonably” could get the information elsewhere; insist that a subpoena only demand documents that are “reasonably necessary” to fulfill Congress’ legislative goals; “be attentive” to how much specific evidence Congress gives to show it needs the records to carry out a legislative purpose; and, finally, “carefully” consider the burdens a subpoena would impose on a president.
Thomas dissented, writing that he believed Congress had no power to issue a legislative subpoena for anyone’s private documents, whether or not they were related to a president. If Congress wanted documents from a president, it had to be in the context of impeachment, Thomas wrote. Alito wrote his own dissent, saying he agreed with the majority that Congress could subpoena a president’s documents, but he didn’t think Roberts’ test was strict enough.
The Subpoenas
The justices heard arguments by telephone in May in a trio of lawsuits that Trump filed trying to shield his tax returns and other financial records. Two of the cases involved subpoenas issued by House Democrats, and the third involved a grand jury subpoena issued as part of a criminal investigation by Vance.
The subpoenas were sent to financial institutions that held Trump's records — accounting firm Mazars USA, Deutsche Bank, and Capital One — but the companies declined to take a position, leaving it up to their client, Trump, to duke it out in court with lawmakers and Vance's office. Trump repeatedly lost in the lower courts, but the Supreme Court paused rulings that would have forced Mazars and the banks to turn over records when the justices agreed to hear the case in December.
During arguments before the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyer tried to distinguish his situation from cases that former presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ultimately lost when they went before the court to fight efforts to probe their affairs. The Supreme Court ruled in 1974 that a grand jury could subpoena tapes that Nixon recorded of conversations in the White House, rejecting his immunity argument. Two decades later, the court ruled in 1997 that Clinton was not immune from facing a civil lawsuit in state court related to issues that predated his presidency.
In the New York district attorney's case, Trump's personal attorneys argued that he should be protected by absolute immunity from any criminal investigation while he's in office.
The Justice Department, which has backed Trump but didn't push the absolute immunity argument, instead argued that the court should require state prosecutors who want to subpoena information about a president to first go to court and meet a high standard for proving they had a special need to do so.
In the congressional subpoena cases, Trump argued that the Democrat-led committees lacked legislative authority to investigate him and demand his records. House Democrats argued that their authority to issue subpoenas was "extremely broad" and that they didn't have to articulate up front exactly what legislation they were considering in order to carry out an investigation.
Three Democrat-led House committees subpoenaed financial institutions for Trump’s records, and each offered its own reasons for doing so. The Committee on Oversight and Reform said it wanted to explore whether Trump committed crimes before taking office, whether he had undisclosed conflicts of interest, whether he was complying with a constitutional prohibition against accepting financial benefits (known as the Emoluments Clauses), and whether he’d complied with financial disclosure rules.
The Committee on Financial Services indicated it was interested in probing how US regulators enforced anti–money laundering laws, and the subpoenas would shed light on what Democrats characterized as “questionable” financing provided by banks to Trump and his company. And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence said it wanted Trump’s records as part of a broader investigation into Russian influence in US political systems, and specifically whether foreign actors had leverage over Trump, his campaign, his businesses, or his family members.
Two federal appeals courts — the DC Circuit and the 2nd Circuit — ruled in favor of House Democrats.
This is a developing story. Check this post for updates and follow BuzzFeed News on Twitter.


buzzfeed--2020-07-12--Texas, California, And Florida Are Now Seeing A Sharp Rise In COVID-19 Deaths

“ We just reopened too fast and these are the consequences of it , ” an emergency room doctor in Houston said .
As experts feared would happen , COVID-19 deaths in the US have started to rise , following a surge in newly diagnosed cases beginning in the middle of June .
The new spikes in deaths are largest in the two most populous states , California and Texas .
And while infectious disease specialists are hopeful that the number of deaths won ’ t grow to match the carnage seen in New York State back in April , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,000 per day , it ’ s unclear how quickly deaths may rise in the worst affected states in the coming weeks .
“ I am worried , given how rapidly things are accelerating here , ” Peter Hotez , a vaccine researcher at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston , told BuzzFeed News .
Ominously , the Texas Tribune reported on Saturday that some counties in the state have requested refrigerated trucks , anticipating that morgues may soon be filled to capacity .
The number of new COVID-19 cases began surging in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West , weeks after many states started to reopen their economies .
But through the rest of the month , daily deaths continued to decline .
“ I believe that at this point in the course of the pandemic , we can still take some comfort in the fact that fatalities are declining all across the country , ” Vice President Mike Pence , chair of the White House Coronavirus Task Force , said on June 26 .
But experts warned BuzzFeed News in late June that any rise in deaths would lag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks , given the delay between infection and serious illness , and the fact that many people being infected were relatively young .
Also , deaths might not start to rise until the virus had spread to more vulnerable older people .
“ We just reopened too fast and these are the consequences of it , ” Cedric Dark , an emergency room physician at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston who has been treating COVID-19 patients , told BuzzFeed News .
This chart highlights the trend in daily deaths for large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases .
Florida , California , and particularly Texas have all seen sharp upticks in the number of recorded deaths in the last week .
Dark said that cases , hospitalizations , and demand for ICU beds surged in the past few weeks , before deaths started to rise .
“ Emergency medicine is like the canary in the coalmine , ” he said .
ProPublica and NBC News reported on July 10 that some ERs in Houston had been treating patients for hours or even days because ICU beds were full .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he is particularly concerned about low-income families living in multi-generational households , where it ’ s hard to isolate vulnerable older people from younger relatives who may be infected .
“ It ’ s not a surprise to me why we see these cases clustering in families , ” he said .
Both Dark and Hotez told BuzzFeed News that hospitals in the states that are currently worst affected are better prepared to deal with a surge of severe cases than New York City hospitals were in March and April .
Treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and many doctors have been able to secure personal protective equipment including masks and respirators .
But if cases continue to rise , hospitals might not be able to keep up with the demand .
“ As hospital staff get overwhelmed and start getting sick and we have staff shortages , then the mortality really starts to go up , ” Hotez warned .
In Arizona , deaths from COVID-19 have been rising more steadily for several months , and there hasn ’ t yet been an abrupt spike .
But experts in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting overwhelmed .
“ It ’ s hard to say where it will go and what mortality will look like as hospitals become stressed , ” Saskia Popescu , an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona in Phoenix , and a member of the Federation of American Scientists ’ Coronavirus Task Force , told BuzzFeed News by email .
“ I ’ m hopeful that hospitals are more prepared , but ultimately there ’ s only so many beds you can create.
” Rising deaths aren ’ t the only reason to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , experts warn .
Another concern is that some patients who recover from severe illness may face lasting damage to their lungs and even their brains and nervous systems .
“ We may be looking at a generation of people permanently disabled as a result of COVID-19 , ” Hotez said .

This chart highlights the trend in daily deaths for large states that have seen recent surges in cases. Florida, California, and particularly Texas have all seen sharp upticks in the number of recorded deaths in the last week.
Dark said that cases, hospitalizations, and demand for ICU beds surged in the past few weeks, before deaths started to rise. “Emergency medicine is like the canary in the coal mine,” he said. ProPublica and NBC News reported on July 10 that some ERs in Houston had been treating patients for hours or even days because ICU beds were full.
As cases continue to surge, Dark said he is particularly concerned about low-income families living in multigenerational households, where it’s hard to isolate vulnerable older people from younger relatives who may be infected. “It’s not a surprise to me why we see these cases clustering in families,” he said.
Both Dark and Hotez told BuzzFeed News that hospitals in the states that are currently worst affected are better prepared to deal with a surge of severe cases than New York City hospitals were in March and April. Treatment for severely ill patients has improved, and many doctors have been able to secure personal protective equipment including masks and respirators.
But if cases continue to rise, hospitals might not be able to keep up with the demand. “As hospital staff get overwhelmed and start getting sick and we have staff shortages, then the mortality really starts to go up,” Hotez warned.
In Arizona, deaths from COVID-19 have been rising more steadily for several months, and there hasn’t yet been an abrupt spike. But experts in that state are similarly worried about hospitals getting overwhelmed.
“It’s hard to say where it will go and what mortality will look like as hospitals become stressed,” Saskia Popescu, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona in Phoenix, and a member of the Federation of American Scientists’ Coronavirus Task Force, told BuzzFeed News by email. “I’m hopeful that hospitals are more prepared, but ultimately there’s only so many beds you can create.”
Rising deaths aren’t the only reason to be worried about the current surge in COVID-19, experts warn. Another concern is that some patients who recover from severe illness may face lasting damage to their lungs and even their brains and nervous systems.
“We may be looking at a generation of people permanently disabled as a result of COVID-19,” Hotez said.


buzzfeed--2020-07-12--Jada Pinkett Smith And Will Smith Just Addressed All The Rumors About Their Marriage — Here's What W

Jada Pinkett Smith And Will Smith Just Addressed All The Rumors About Their Marriage — Here's What We Learned

`` Luckily enough , you and I were also going through a process of healing in a much different manner @ @ @ @ @ `` I would definitely say that we did everything we could to get away from @ @ @ @ @ realize that that was n't possible . ''

"Luckily enough, you and I were also going through a process of healing in a much different manner," Jada said. "I would definitely say that we did everything we could to get away from each other, only to realize that that wasn't possible."


buzzfeed--2020-07-12--I Caught My Boyfriend Watching Porn While We Were Having Sex — Should I Dump Him?

And just to be 100 % clear : I 'm not here to shame anyone with a kink — watching @ @ @ @ @ a perfectly normal and healthy activity when both parties are down for it !
But @ @ @ @ @ people who would force their partner to participate in any type of sex — kinky @ @ @ @ @ in between — against their wishes .

And just to be 100% clear: I'm not here to shame anyone with a kink — watching porn during sex can be a perfectly normal and healthy activity when both parties are down for it! But I am here to shame people who would force their partner to participate in any type of sex — kinky, vanilla, or anywhere in between — against their wishes.


buzzfeed--2020-07-13--Texas, California, And Florida Are Now Seeing A Sharp Rise In COVID-19 Deaths


buzzfeed--2020-07-12--This Expert Explained The Real Difference Between Name Brand And Generic Drugs

According to Dr. Brown , there are a lot of reasons a drug might not have a generic version , @ @ @ @ @ because there is a tremendous amount of litigation in the generic drug industry .
`` @ @ @ @ @ sue for patent infringement to delay generics being approved .
There are also instances where @ @ @ @ @ generic companies to not make a generic version .
Also , as I mentioned before @ @ @ @ @ product can be patented , including the active ingredient , the formulation , the chemical @ @ @ @ @ ingredient , and so on .
Furthermore , making a certain drug may just be @ @ @ @ @ might not want to take the risk , '' he added .

When it comes down to deciding between a name brand and a generic drug, Dr. Brown said there are two broad categories of drugs where a name brand drug is the best option: Those with narrow therapeutic indices and/or serious consequences and complex generic product. "Narrow therapeutic indices are drugs that, if you change the dose — even a small amount — it can change the safety or effectiveness profile substantially. While complex generic product is broadly defined by the FDA as drugs that have complex formulations. Because most drugs do not fit into these two categories, they are less of a concern when it comes to choosing between the generic version or name brand."


buzzfeed--2020-07-13--After My Marriage Ended, I Started Having The Sex I Really Wanted

The sex I ’ ve had since I left my marriage has given me a way to live in the present and ask for my present needs — and made me realize how much that freedom means .
My marriage , which I told my husband I wanted to end last March , did n't meet the legal definition of “ sexless , ” which would have qualified me , in some divorce courts , as technically “ abandoned.
” But it was sexless in every way : declawed , defanged .
Empty of tension .
Devoid of spontaneity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nightmare version of Esther Perel ’ s Mating in Captivity : all captivity , no mating .
We were in physical contact , yes .
Sometimes , once every few months , we had sex .
It was always the same , followed the same physical and emotional pattern , and happened only under very specific circumstances : I would be on my way somewhere else for a few days , or on my way back from somewhere , and this brief sense of unavailability , this brief moment of lack , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bed at the same time as me .
To turn toward me .
To touch me .
The rest of the time , I , having told him every few months that sex was an important part of life , that I didn ’ t want to live without it , that I felt rejected and trapped without it , would watch his face for signs of interest .
Was he heading in my direction ?
Was he actually lying down next to me ?
Was he turning toward me ?
Or was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slept in the bed instead of on the couch , putting his headphones in and rolling over ?
Once or 10 times , early on in the beginning , before it had become such a thing , I ’ d tried to initiate sex , and was always rebuffed .
And when I ’ d brought up how sometimes I tried and he pulled away and did he want to talk about that , he ’ d said he didn ’ t like it when I initiated , that it made him feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controlled , or tricked , and since then I had committed to never initiating .
Let him come to you , 10,000 advice columns said .
Sometimes , I faltered in my commitment , because I was so desperate to connect , and also because I wanted to have sex , and I would initiate anyway , and as I tried to kiss him he would lie there like a stone — unmoving , immovable .
When we married , we joked that he was a wildebeest and I was a butterfly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t such a joke anymore .
Of course I took this all personally .
Of course I took our marriage seriously , and wanted it to last , and so I just kept waiting .
Waiting for a spark .
Waiting for his desire to return .
Waiting to have that feeling of absolute physical abandon I knew we ’ d once had .
Now , having left , having been gone for over a year , having seen what happened to his psyche when his tiny world , with his computer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the edges , collapsed , I believe that his challenges were much bigger than our marriage , than me .
It feels now , in retrospect , that the burden he was carrying was something I couldn ’ t — still can ’ t — actually imagine .
But at the time , and still , all I knew was my side of things .
It seemed simple .
I wanted to have sex with my husband .
I used to be attracted to my husband .
I know that he used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted to feel attractive .
I wanted to feel desired .
And I didn ’ t .
A week and a half after I saw my husband for what still , as of today , remains the last time , I had a one-night stand .
The week and a half earlier , after a long talk about rehab and hope , I had kissed my husband goodbye , because he had been on his way to California to try and figure some things out , and we were pretty sure we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ d decided that we were going to get divorced , even as I was still wondering if maybe things would turn around , or if maybe he ’ d come back to being the person I fell in love with , someone I felt I hadn ’ t seen in a while .
He walked out the door and suddenly , within seconds , after six years of pledged loyalty , I was a free agent .
And then almost just as suddenly I was standing in another man ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen , and it felt right and wrong , and familiar and new , and it felt like it had been no time and an eternity of time since I ’ d been with a man who wasn ’ t my husband .
This man and I went from the living room to his bedroom , to a different bed , I to a different body .
It was at once everything I wanted , and it wasn ’ t enough .
Couldn ’ t be enough .
The depth of my hunger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost six years of feeling a constant coldness , a drive away from my direction , was too much for one person , or for one encounter .
In that moment , I couldn ’ t control myself , couldn ’ t calibrate .
It was like being given water after six years in the desert , and gulping , and receiving just enough water , but at once drowning and being sure I needed more .
Still feeling like I would die .
My sense of momentum , my sense of my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , had become so addled that I was at once like a rocket and a sloth .
I was rushing , headlong , into nothing .
A few days after we hooked up and I hadn ’ t heard from him , which surprised me , I texted a friend .
“ I ’ m really trying not to text him , ” I wrote .
“ Oh , I suggest you do , ” she wrote .
“ Why not be a pleasure activist ?
” I bought adrienne maree brown ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
I ’ d been taught for the entirety of my sexual career , which started when I was 17 or 19 , depending on how you count , that my role was to not want .
To not seek my own pleasure .
To pretend that my own pleasure would be a happy accident , a by-product of giving a man something .
That sex is about giving , and taking .
But I wanted to take .
I wanted to take everything .
I wanted to swallow the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ again and again and again , I wanted to lose myself .
I wanted to feel how wrong it was , how inappropriate ( he was much younger than me ) .
I wanted to come , and make myself come , and have someone else make me come .
I fantasized about violence , his hands on me , his hands on my throat .
It was all about him .
It was all about my marriage .
I could see , in brief moments of clarity , that the entirety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been shaped and molded by the part I ’ d been shown how to play in my marriage , the one in which I did not desire my husband — in which only he was allowed to show desire for me , and only when I was almost gone .
I didn ’ t see that first one-night stand again , but I did have more sex .
A friend , who ’ d also gotten divorced once , referred to it as checking on old accounts .
I thought about everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while I ’ d been married , and called them up .
Everyone knew why I was calling .
One old friend and I had sex and it was light , and fun , and friendly , and it felt afterward that I had slightly recalibrated , that my amygdala wasn ’ t shocked , that the water was enough , mostly .
And then another friend and I had sex , and it was thrilling in its desire and similarity and intensity , and also — and this felt new — safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me home after I came over .
Both of them I ’ m still friends with today .
The experience of sleeping with one friend and then , pretty quickly , another reminded me of the weekend I ’ d first tried to get sober , almost 13 years ago .
I was living with one man , starting a relationship with a second , had had a one-night stand with a third , and was about to have another one-night stand with a fourth .
At the time , I categorized this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was , though I can see more clearly now why : It was predicated on desire .
My desire .
I ’ d always thought — been taught — that my capacity for sexual desire was bad , and wrong .
That my wanting to fuck four dudes in close proximity had to be some sign of trauma , or maladaptiveness .
No one had ever told me that , besides our culture .
I never heard it from anyone except everyone .
I adopted the belief .
And I thought that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could actually be .
How prudent .
How good .
How not-bad .
A friend who ’ s known me since I was 17 asked , after I left my husband , if I ’ d cheated on him .
I hadn ’ t .
We found this extraordinary , and my friend high-fived me .
At first , yes .
At second , but wait .
Because at what cost — to me — had my fidelity come ?
My friend hadn ’ t asked about the price of staying faithful to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hadn ’ t asked about the quiet way in which I suffocated myself , all so that I could be a good wife , a good daughter-in-law , a good girl .
Neither of us thought to .
But after I left my husband , after I realized that I really did want to get divorced , I felt those chains start to lift .
Maybe , 13 years ago , wanting to have sex with four men in rapid succession was about wanting to — and deserving to — feel that much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much connection .
Maybe , now , I deserved it again .
Being single after divorce isn ’ t the same as being single before , a friend told me .
The culture assumes that straight ( though I ’ m not entirely straight ) women get married and then get divorced and then go on to seek their next husband , and so we don ’ t talk that much about this burst , whatever form it might take .
But that pattern hasn ’ t been true for many , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know , and it ’ s certainly not true for me .
Since I left my husband , my primary relationship aim is no longer to figure out if this is the one , or if this is going somewhere .
I don ’ t need my sexual encounters to go anywhere .
I don ’ t have to worry about whether a man is going to take me seriously or not and try and pretend that I don ’ t always fuck on the first date because , reader , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultural indulgence that comes with it , has given me this window of freedom , to live in the present and ask for my present needs , and in those weeks following my husband ’ s departure , my present needs were sex with no strings attached .
I wanted to feel physical pleasure and sexual pleasure and desire , and I wanted that desire to be met .
I loved the freedom of the window .
And sometimes I had the thought : What if that window could be open all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In early July of last year , I met Troy at a party .
The day after he invited me to the movies , and we went to the movies and then we walked home and then halfway home we agreed that we were in fact on a date , and he said he was thirsty , could we stop at the deli , and I told him I had LaCroix in my fridge , and took him on a tour of my house and then asked if he wanted to see my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before I took him back to my room , we sat on the couch just laughing , and I remember that particular anticipatory feeling , before we kissed , and how much I ’ d believed I ’ d never have that feeling again .
How before I got married I read Sheryl Paul ’ s Conscious Bride , and did the premarriage workbook , checking into hotel room after hotel room and writing letters to my single self saying goodbye .
How I ’ d said goodbye forever to that moment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time , because I planned to only ever kiss my husband .
And Troy and I went into my room , and he sat on my bed , and I lunged at him and then we kissed and I thought , it ’ s too bad this won ’ t happen again , because this is how I want to be kissed .
He slept over .
We had sex .
I saw him a few days later , and then I flew to see him in Budapest from my family vacation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was getting divorced , I could do anything .
We had sex there .
And the sex kept getting better .
He showed me things I ’ d done maybe once or twice , 10 years ago , but now I liked them .
He wanted me to spit in his mouth , he said .
I learned I wanted to drink his .
One night , he took his hand and held it to my throat , just so , very gently , and I took his hand and put it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , put his fingers down my throat .
He could have killed me .
I loved it .
Troy and I didn ’ t slap or hit each other .
There was a quieter intimacy and a quieter threat of invited violence at work here , in the way in which he slowly put his hand on my neck just to either side of my windpipe .
The way , sometimes , he knew I couldn ’ t breathe , and pulled away just in time .
That was trust .
That was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems .
That was what I had missed in my marriage .
It took months for me to realize how safe and how sexual I could really be with Troy .
Months of me asking for what I wanted , and getting it .
And I kept asking for what I wanted , no matter how ashamed I might have felt , how much I could , sometimes , still hear my husband 's voice , see his immovable face , feel his judgment scratching at the back of my brain to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I kept seeing Troy , always just one more time .
We went on a third date and then a fourth , and fifth .
I kept falling for him , and he for me .
But then , a few months ago , I noticed that I was initiating sex more , that he wasn ’ t doing it as much .
And I brought it up .
I ’ d been in a sexless marriage , I told him , and I wasn ’ t going to do it again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in the months after , he initiated , until we both got COVID and didn ’ t see each other for six weeks .
Something happened in that absence , and we couldn ’ t find our way back to each other .
Between the first and second draft of this essay , I broke up with him .
It was the first time I ’ d broken up with someone I deeply cared about because they couldn ’ t give me what I wanted ; the first time I ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make my needs smaller and tinier ; the first time I ’ d truly chosen myself and my wants .
There ’ s a freedom in seeking sex for the present moment , and not needing to tie it to roles : girlfriend , wife , ex-wife .
Once I became someone ’ s wife , I stopped being Eva , in so many ways .
Sex with Troy , and lately with myself , and even more lately with far-flung friends over the phone , has become a way of returning me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not someone else ’ s wife .
I ’ m not someone else ’ s girlfriend .
I ’ m not someone else ’ s sex partner .
I ’ m free .
I ’ m free because I decided to say yes , and yes , and yes again .
●

I’d been taught for the entirety of my sexual career, which started when I was 17 or 19, depending on how you count, that my role was to not want. To not seek my own pleasure. To pretend that my own pleasure would be a happy accident, a by-product of giving a man something. That sex is about giving, and taking. But I wanted to take. I wanted to take everything. I wanted to swallow the world. I wanted to fuck this man, again and again and again, I wanted to lose myself. I wanted to feel how wrong it was, how inappropriate (he was much younger than me). I wanted to come, and make myself come, and have someone else make me come. I fantasized about violence, his hands on me, his hands on my throat. It was all about him. It was all about my marriage. I could see, in brief moments of clarity, that the entirety of what I thought my sexual needs were had been shaped and molded by the part I’d been shown how to play in my marriage, the one in which I did not desire my husband — in which only he was allowed to show desire for me, and only when I was almost gone.
I didn’t see that first one-night stand again, but I did have more sex. A friend, who’d also gotten divorced once, referred to it as checking on old accounts. I thought about everyone I’d had sexual tension with while I’d been married, and called them up. Everyone knew why I was calling. One old friend and I had sex and it was light, and fun, and friendly, and it felt afterward that I had slightly recalibrated, that my amygdala wasn’t shocked, that the water was enough, mostly. And then another friend and I had sex, and it was thrilling in its desire and similarity and intensity, and also — and this felt new — safety and communication. Both of them drove me home after I came over. Both of them I’m still friends with today.
The experience of sleeping with one friend and then, pretty quickly, another reminded me of the weekend I’d first tried to get sober, almost 13 years ago. I was living with one man, starting a relationship with a second, had had a one-night stand with a third, and was about to have another one-night stand with a fourth. At the time, I categorized this as bad behavior. And of course it was, though I can see more clearly now why: It was predicated on desire. My desire. I’d always thought — been taught — that my capacity for sexual desire was bad, and wrong. That my wanting to fuck four dudes in close proximity had to be some sign of trauma, or maladaptiveness. No one had ever told me that, besides our culture. I never heard it from anyone except everyone. I adopted the belief. And I thought that getting married would show how chaste I could actually be. How prudent. How good. How not-bad.
A friend who’s known me since I was 17 asked, after I left my husband, if I’d cheated on him. I hadn’t. We found this extraordinary, and my friend high-fived me. At first, yes. At second, but wait. Because at what cost — to me — had my fidelity come? My friend hadn’t asked about the price of staying faithful to someone who did not want me. Hadn’t asked about the quiet way in which I suffocated myself, all so that I could be a good wife, a good daughter-in-law, a good girl. Neither of us thought to. But after I left my husband, after I realized that I really did want to get divorced, I felt those chains start to lift. Maybe, 13 years ago, wanting to have sex with four men in rapid succession was about wanting to — and deserving to — feel that much pleasure, that much aliveness, that much connection. Maybe, now, I deserved it again.
Being single after divorce isn’t the same as being single before, a friend told me. The culture assumes that straight (though I’m not entirely straight) women get married and then get divorced and then go on to seek their next husband, and so we don’t talk that much about this burst, whatever form it might take. But that pattern hasn’t been true for many, many, many divorced or divorcing women that I know, and it’s certainly not true for me. Since I left my husband, my primary relationship aim is no longer to figure out if this is the one, or if this is going somewhere. I don’t need my sexual encounters to go anywhere. I don’t have to worry about whether a man is going to take me seriously or not and try and pretend that I don’t always fuck on the first date because, reader, I always do.
Divorce, and the cultural indulgence that comes with it, has given me this window of freedom, to live in the present and ask for my present needs, and in those weeks following my husband’s departure, my present needs were sex with no strings attached. I wanted to feel physical pleasure and sexual pleasure and desire, and I wanted that desire to be met. I loved the freedom of the window. And sometimes I had the thought: What if that window could be open all the time? For all of us?


buzzfeed--2020-07-13--Jada Pinkett Smith And Will Smith Just Addressed All The Rumors About Their Marriage — Here's What W


buzzfeed--2020-07-13--I Caught My Boyfriend Watching Porn While We Were Having Sex — Should I Dump Him?


buzzfeed--2020-07-13--A Judge Blocked The Trump Administration From Carrying Out Lethal Injections Hours Before A Man Was

A Judge Blocked The Trump Administration From Carrying Out Lethal Injections Hours Before A Man Was Scheduled To Die

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington , DC , once again issued an order blocking the Trump administration from carrying out federal executions by lethal injection , hours before a man was scheduled to die .
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that the death row inmates who are pursuing a series of legal challenges to the administration 's new lethal injection protocol should be given time to exhaust those efforts before the federal government can execute them .
The federal Bureau of Prisons was set to execute Daniel Lewis Lee at 4 p.m. EDT on Monday , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the week .
They would be the first inmates executed by the federal government since 2003 .
The judge wrote that the `` last-minute nature '' of her ruling was n't the inmates ' fault , but rather the Justice Department 's for setting execution dates while the legal action was still pending .
`` [ B ] ecause the public is not served by short-circuiting legitimate judicial process , and is greatly served by attempting to ensure that the most serious punishment is imposed in a manner consistent with our Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the public interest to issue a preliminary injunction , '' Chutkan wrote .
The Justice Department immediately appealed Chutkan 's decision to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit .
A spokesperson declined to comment .
Shawn Nolan , one of the lawyers involved in challenging the Trump administration 's new lethal injection protocol on behalf of death row inmates , said in a statement that the injunction would not only give the inmates time to pursue all of their legal arguments , but also protect everyone else involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On Sunday , the Justice Department filed a notice in court that another staff member at the federal prison facility where the executions were set to take place , FCI Terre Haute , had tested positive for COVID-19 , the disease caused by the novel coronavirus .
“ The government has been trying to plow forward with these executions despite many unanswered questions about the legality of its new execution protocol .
The district court ’ s injunction ensures that the courts will have the opportunity to carefully address those issues .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 super-spreader events , the injunction will also protect the lives and health of the correctional staff , victim family members , spiritual advisors , attorneys , and others who must witness the executions , '' Nolan said .
Monday 's order came after two weeks of frantic litigation across multiple courts by the death row inmates as well as other parties seeking to stop or at least delay the executions .
On Friday , a federal judge in Indiana had ordered Lee 's execution delayed .
Lee was convicted of murdering a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and family members of the victims had asked the judge to delay the execution because they wanted to be present but did not feel safe traveling during the coronavirus pandemic ; these family members have opposed Lee 's execution , advocating instead for a life sentence .
US District Chief Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson sided with the family members and granted the injunction .
On Sunday , however , a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit reversed that injunction , giving the Bureau of Prisons the green light to proceed with the execution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal law or regulation that gave victims ' families a right to attend an execution , which meant that there was n't any legal right that they could go to court to enforce .
The panel also held that the agency action being challenged — the scheduling of an execution — was n't something a court could review under the federal Administrative Procedure Act if the Bureau of Prisons followed the `` minimal requirements in the regulations . ''
In a separate case that Lee filed trying to challenge his underlying conviction based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been ineffective , the 7th Circuit issued an order on Friday rejecting that effort .
Lee had unsuccessfully tried to raise arguments about his lawyers ' handling of his case in the past , and the court ruled that he could n't relitigate that issue now .
Two other death row inmates , who were also convicted of murdering children , were scheduled to die this week : executions were scheduled for Wesley Purkey on July 15 , and Dustin Lee Honken on July 17 .
A fourth execution , for Keith Nelson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Purkey 's execution had already been put on hold by the 7th Circuit while he litigated new challenges to his conviction .
A separate lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in federal court in Indiana on behalf of Purkey 's spiritual adviser remains pending ; Rev .
Seigen Hartkemeyer , a Zen Buddhist priest who wanted to attend Purkey 's execution , had argued it should be delayed because it was n't safe for him to travel due to the pandemic .
The judge has yet to rule in that case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney General Bill Barr announced that the Trump administration planned to resume federal executions — the US government last executed someone in 2003 .
Chutkan had previously halted the executions while the inmates challenged the new , single-drug lethal injection protocol announced by the administration .
The inmates lost the first round of litigation .
They initially argued that the new protocol violated the Federal Death Penalty Act , but the DC Circuit ruled they were n't likely to win on those grounds .
The US Supreme Court declined to get involved , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new set of execution dates .
Chutkan 's latest order is based on a new set of arguments that the inmates are pressing , including that the Trump administration failed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act in adopting the new lethal injection plan , and that the protocol violates the Eighth Amendment 's prohibition on `` cruel and unusual punishment . ''
Chutkan found that the inmates were likely to succeed on the Eighth Amendment claim because the administration 's drug of choice , pentobarbital sodium , `` poses an unconstitutionally significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cited declarations that the inmates ' lawyers submitted showing that inmates executed by pentobarbital — states have continued to carry out executions even while the federal government did not — suffered flash pulmonary edema , a condition that interferes with a person 's ability to breathe .
`` Eyewitness accounts of executions using pentobarbital describe inmates repeatedly gasping for breath or showing other signs of respiratory distress , and indicate that flash pulmonary edema is common and extremely painful , '' the judge wrote .
Chutkan wrote that the inmates met the standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative executions methods `` that would significant reduce the risk of serious pain '' — receiving a dose of opioid or anti-anxiety medication before the injection , or a firing squad .
She did n't reach the inmates ' Administrative Procedure Act arguments .

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington, DC, once again issued an order blocking the Trump administration from carrying out federal executions by lethal injection, hours before a man was scheduled to die.
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that the death row inmates who are pursuing a series of legal challenges to the administration's new lethal injection protocol should be given time to exhaust those efforts before the federal government can execute them. The federal Bureau of Prisons was set to execute Daniel Lewis Lee at 4 p.m. EDT on Monday, and two more executions were scheduled for later in the week. They would be the first inmates executed by the federal government since 2003.
The judge wrote that the "last-minute nature" of her ruling wasn't the inmates' fault, but rather the Justice Department's for setting execution dates while the legal action was still pending.
"[B]ecause the public is not served by short-circuiting legitimate judicial process, and is greatly served by attempting to ensure that the most serious punishment is imposed in a manner consistent with our Constitution, the court finds that it is in the public interest to issue a preliminary injunction," Chutkan wrote.
The Justice Department immediately appealed Chutkan's decision to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. A spokesperson declined to comment.
Shawn Nolan, one of the lawyers involved in challenging the Trump administration's new lethal injection protocol on behalf of death row inmates, said in a statement that the injunction would not only give the inmates time to pursue all of their legal arguments, but also protect everyone else involved in the execution process during the coronavirus pandemic. On Sunday, the Justice Department filed a notice in court that another staff member at the federal prison facility where the executions were set to take place, FCI Terre Haute, had tested positive for COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.
“The government has been trying to plow forward with these executions despite many unanswered questions about the legality of its new execution protocol. The district court’s injunction ensures that the courts will have the opportunity to carefully address those issues. Given that these executions threaten to become COVID-19 super-spreader events, the injunction will also protect the lives and health of the correctional staff, victim family members, spiritual advisors, attorneys, and others who must witness the executions," Nolan said.
Monday's order came after two weeks of frantic litigation across multiple courts by the death row inmates as well as other parties seeking to stop or at least delay the executions.
On Friday, a federal judge in Indiana had ordered Lee's execution delayed. Lee was convicted of murdering a family of three, including a child, and family members of the victims had asked the judge to delay the execution because they wanted to be present but did not feel safe traveling during the coronavirus pandemic; these family members have opposed Lee's execution, advocating instead for a life sentence. US District Chief Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson sided with the family members and granted the injunction.
On Sunday, however, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit reversed that injunction, giving the Bureau of Prisons the green light to proceed with the execution. The court concluded there was no federal law or regulation that gave victims' families a right to attend an execution, which meant that there wasn't any legal right that they could go to court to enforce. The panel also held that the agency action being challenged — the scheduling of an execution — wasn't something a court could review under the federal Administrative Procedure Act if the Bureau of Prisons followed the "minimal requirements in the regulations."
In a separate case that Lee filed trying to challenge his underlying conviction based on arguments that his former lawyers had been ineffective, the 7th Circuit issued an order on Friday rejecting that effort. Lee had unsuccessfully tried to raise arguments about his lawyers' handling of his case in the past, and the court ruled that he couldn't relitigate that issue now.
Two other death row inmates, who were also convicted of murdering children, were scheduled to die this week: executions were scheduled for Wesley Purkey on July 15, and Dustin Lee Honken on July 17. A fourth execution, for Keith Nelson, was scheduled for Aug. 28.
Purkey's execution had already been put on hold by the 7th Circuit while he litigated new challenges to his conviction. A separate lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in federal court in Indiana on behalf of Purkey's spiritual adviser remains pending; Rev. Seigen Hartkemeyer, a Zen Buddhist priest who wanted to attend Purkey's execution, had argued it should be delayed because it wasn't safe for him to travel due to the pandemic. The judge has yet to rule in that case.
It's been a year since Attorney General Bill Barr announced that the Trump administration planned to resume federal executions — the US government last executed someone in 2003. Chutkan had previously halted the executions while the inmates challenged the new, single-drug lethal injection protocol announced by the administration.
The inmates lost the first round of litigation. They initially argued that the new protocol violated the Federal Death Penalty Act, but the DC Circuit ruled they weren't likely to win on those grounds. The US Supreme Court declined to get involved, and last month the Justice Department announced the new set of execution dates.
Chutkan's latest order is based on a new set of arguments that the inmates are pressing, including that the Trump administration failed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act in adopting the new lethal injection plan, and that the protocol violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment." Chutkan found that the inmates were likely to succeed on the Eighth Amendment claim because the administration's drug of choice, pentobarbital sodium, "poses an unconstitutionally significant risk of pain."
The judge cited declarations that the inmates' lawyers submitted showing that inmates executed by pentobarbital — states have continued to carry out executions even while the federal government did not — suffered flash pulmonary edema, a condition that interferes with a person's ability to breathe.
"Eyewitness accounts of executions using pentobarbital describe inmates repeatedly gasping for breath or showing other signs of respiratory distress, and indicate that flash pulmonary edema is common and extremely painful," the judge wrote.
Chutkan wrote that the inmates met the standard for an injunction because they'd identified alternative executions methods "that would significant reduce the risk of serious pain" — receiving a dose of opioid or anti-anxiety medication before the injection, or a firing squad. She didn't reach the inmates' Administrative Procedure Act arguments.


buzzfeed--2020-07-14--The Trump Administration Has Reversed Its Ban On Foreign Students Taking All Classes Online

A runner passes through an arch on the campus of Boston University on May 20 .
BuzzFeed News has reporters around the world bringing you trustworthy stories about the impact of the coronavirus .
To help keep this news free , become a member .
The Trump administration on Tuesday rescinded a controversial policy that would have revoked legal status for international students who planned to take classes entirely online in the fall as university campuses remain largely closed during the coronavirus pandemic .
Details of the administration ’ s rollback came during a court hearing over a challenge brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Technology in federal court on Tuesday .
According to a court order , both sides had reached an agreement to rescind the policy , which was announced by Immigration and Customs Enforcement last week , sending thousands of students into a panic .
The Trump administration ’ s decision is a rare one .
Government officials have repeatedly defended controversial immigration policies in court during the past three years , refusing to alter their decisions unless forced to .
In this case , however , droves of major universities had lined up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Associated Press counted more than 200 universities that had agreed to support the Harvard challenge .
International students in the US also spoke up on social media as politicians railed against its necessity .
`` This is the first time since family separation that the Trump administration has backed down on an immigration policy without a court order , '' said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick , a policy analyst at the American Immigration Council .
`` Like with family separation , the administration seems to have totally unanticipated the level of backlash they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separation was eventually replaced with other policies aimed at cracking down on asylum seekers , with the fall semester only weeks away , it remains unclear if the Trump administration will try again here . ''
International students reached by BuzzFeed News Tuesday said they were grateful for the decision .
“ I 'm extremely relieved on a personal note .
I wo n't have to compromise my health or education , ” said Siobhan , a 25-year old Irish college student in New York studying biochemistry .
“ But I think this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take anything about our legal status for granted , and that we should be really vigilant about future attempts to do something like this.
” ICE had previously said students on F-1 and M-1 visas in the US could transfer to a school offering in-person classes to maintain their legal status .
Otherwise , they risked being deported .
Lisa , a 24-year-old student from Africa who asked that her full name not be used , is attending the University of Massachusetts Amherst on an F-1 visa and said her department is completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is both terrifying and disappointing that this had to happen in the first place , '' she said .
`` The government basically created a problem and then proceeded to 'solve it . '
Although I am relieved that the policy was rescinded , I am still angry that it took lawsuits to be filed for the government to do the right thing .
International students and foreign-born nationals in this country always have to live with the floor begin pulled from underneath them .
That is not a way to live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students on F-1 visas may take a maximum of one class or three credit hours online .
Under the proposed policy some students taking a combination of online and in-person classes will be allowed to take more than the maximum currently allowed by federal regulation , as long as schools certify the program is not entirely online .
The Department of Homeland Security 's Student and Exchange Visitor Program previously instituted a temporary exception for online classes in the spring and summer semesters in response to schools going online because of COVID-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said in a statement called ICE 's reversal a `` significant victory '' against a directive that would 've disrupted the nation 's higher education system .
`` I have heard from countless international students who said that the July 6 directive had put them at serious risk , '' Bacow said .
`` These student—our students—can now rest easier and focus on their education , which is all they ever wanted to do . ''
Even if the government attempts to issue a new directive , Bacow said their legal arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately seek judicial relief `` should the government again act unlawfully . ''
`` The ICE directive sought to force each of us to choose between the health of our communities and the education of our international students—a false and dangerous choice which we rejected , '' Bacow said .

The Trump administration on Tuesday rescinded a controversial policy that would have revoked legal status for international students who planned to take classes entirely online in the fall as university campuses remain largely closed during the coronavirus pandemic.
Details of the administration’s rollback came during a court hearing over a challenge brought by Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in federal court on Tuesday. According to a court order, both sides had reached an agreement to rescind the policy, which was announced by Immigration and Customs Enforcement last week, sending thousands of students into a panic.
The Trump administration’s decision is a rare one. Government officials have repeatedly defended controversial immigration policies in court during the past three years, refusing to alter their decisions unless forced to. In this case, however, droves of major universities had lined up to challenge the policy in court. The Associated Press counted more than 200 universities that had agreed to support the Harvard challenge. International students in the US also spoke up on social media as politicians railed against its necessity.
"This is the first time since family separation that the Trump administration has backed down on an immigration policy without a court order," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a policy analyst at the American Immigration Council. "Like with family separation, the administration seems to have totally unanticipated the level of backlash they were going to get. But while family separation was eventually replaced with other policies aimed at cracking down on asylum seekers, with the fall semester only weeks away, it remains unclear if the Trump administration will try again here."
International students reached by BuzzFeed News Tuesday said they were grateful for the decision.
“I'm extremely relieved on a personal note. I won't have to compromise my health or education,” said Siobhan, a 25-year old Irish college student in New York studying biochemistry. “But I think this very clearly shows that we can't take anything about our legal status for granted, and that we should be really vigilant about future attempts to do something like this.”
ICE had previously said students on F-1 and M-1 visas in the US could transfer to a school offering in-person classes to maintain their legal status. Otherwise, they risked being deported.
Lisa, a 24-year-old student from Africa who asked that her full name not be used, is attending the University of Massachusetts Amherst on an F-1 visa and said her department is completely online because of the pandemic.
"It is both terrifying and disappointing that this had to happen in the first place," she said. "The government basically created a problem and then proceeded to 'solve it.' Although I am relieved that the policy was rescinded, I am still angry that it took lawsuits to be filed for the government to do the right thing. International students and foreign-born nationals in this country always have to live with the floor begin pulled from underneath them. That is not a way to live."
Under existing federal regulations, students on F-1 visas may take a maximum of one class or three credit hours online. Under the proposed policy some students taking a combination of online and in-person classes will be allowed to take more than the maximum currently allowed by federal regulation, as long as schools certify the program is not entirely online.
The Department of Homeland Security's Student and Exchange Visitor Program previously instituted a temporary exception for online classes in the spring and summer semesters in response to schools going online because of COVID-19.
Larry Bacow, president of Harvard University, said in a statement called ICE's reversal a "significant victory" against a directive that would've disrupted the nation's higher education system.
"I have heard from countless international students who said that the July 6 directive had put them at serious risk," Bacow said. "These student—our students—can now rest easier and focus on their education, which is all they ever wanted to do."
Even if the government attempts to issue a new directive, Bacow said their legal arguments remain strong and are well positioned to immediately seek judicial relief "should the government again act unlawfully."
"The ICE directive sought to force each of us to choose between the health of our communities and the education of our international students—a false and dangerous choice which we rejected," Bacow said.


buzzfeed--2020-07-14--The Government's Own Experts Say Separating Immigrant Families During The Coronavirus Pandemic Will

The Government's Own Experts Say Separating Immigrant Families During The Coronavirus Pandemic Will Add To Their Mental Trauma

BuzzFeed News has reporters around the world bringing you trustworthy stories about the impact of the coronavirus .
To help keep this news free , become a member .
A group of medical experts hired by the Department of Homeland Security says separating immigrant children from their parents would “ exacerbate the physical and mental trauma to detained families who know they are unable to protect themselves from the deadly , rapidly spreading pandemic.
” The group of doctors — Scott Allen , Pamela McPherson , and Josiah Rich — are professors and medical and mental health experts for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Civil Liberties , which inspects the care of those in government custody .
They described their opposition to any potential policy that would separate families on Tuesday in a letter to Congress that was obtained by BuzzFeed News .
The letter comes after immigrant children were ordered released from ICE detention centers across the country , which advocates worry could lead to scenarios in which they could be separated from their parents .
“ We are writing to you , members of Congress responsible for overseeing DHS , because we have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about DHS ’ s reattempt to separate children from their families in response to a federal court order to release the children when it is within ICE discretion to release the families intact , ” the medical experts wrote .
“ We advocate for the release of immigrant detainees who present no threat to communities to prevent both the harm of family and children separation and the risk of spread and infection of COVID-19.
” The doctors said they shared their “ concerns about the serious medical and mental health risks associated with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus spreading in congregate settings ” with the lead official in charge of the DHS civil rights division last week .
Allen , professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California Riverside School of Medicine , and McPherson , who teaches fellows at the LSU Health Sciences University in Shreveport , Louisiana , have been outspoken on the issues of immigrant children in custody and the policy that led to separation of families at the border in 2018 .
`` That ICE is considering repeating one of the darkest moments of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families — knowing this will cause serious medical and psychological harm to children is nothing less than willful endangerment , ” said Dana Gold , senior counsel at the Government Accountability Project and attorney for Allen , McPherson , and Rich .
“ That DHS ’ s own medical and mental health experts need to speak up to try to prevent this agency from inflicting imminent harm on innocent children is another grotesque example of the government ignoring its medical experts .
If we ’ ve learned anything over the past few months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
As of Thursday , there were 319 immigrants — at least 157 of them children — in custody at the three family detention centers .
At the Karnes County Residential Center in Texas , there are 24 current cases of COVID-19 among immigrant families detained there .
There have been 35 total cases at the facility .
There have been no positive cases at the other two ICE family detention centers .
Last week , US government officials told a federal judge that immigrant families should not be released from custody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court should deny a motion for a preliminary injunction to promptly release all families in ICE detention .
Immigrant advocates said the filing sets up a potential separation of children from their parents in custody as the government looks to comply with a separate order to release the children .
Attorneys for ICE have denied allegations that it was incapable of protecting immigrant families from contracting COVID-19 .
Government attorneys also pushed back against the claim that immigrant families face irreparable harm in being forced to choose between family separation or continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be released .
Last month , US District Judge Dolly Gee , who oversees a 1997 court settlement known as the Flores agreement that says the government ca n't detain children for more than 20 days , ordered the release of immigrant minors at ICE facilities by July 17 .
Previously , an independent monitor tasked with tracking how children in family detention centers are treated as part of the court agreement said the risk of immigrant minors and families contracting coronavirus inside one of the facilities continued to grow because some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distancing requirements .
“ Despite the overwhelming warning and recommendation of the medical community , DHS has ignored the advice of its own experts , continuing to keep children in detention for months , above and beyond the court-mandated 20-day limit , ” the doctors wrote .
“ DHS has also failed to release most of the immigrants from detention facilities around the country , contrary to the advice of medical and public health efforts .
Worse , DHS is now attempting to reinstate the practice of family separation using a federal @ @ @ @ @ @

A group of medical experts hired by the Department of Homeland Security says separating immigrant children from their parents would “exacerbate the physical and mental trauma to detained families who know they are unable to protect themselves from the deadly, rapidly spreading pandemic.”
The group of doctors — Scott Allen, Pamela McPherson, and Josiah Rich — are professors and medical and mental health experts for the department’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which inspects the care of those in government custody. They described their opposition to any potential policy that would separate families on Tuesday in a letter to Congress that was obtained by BuzzFeed News.
The letter comes after immigrant children were ordered released from ICE detention centers across the country, which advocates worry could lead to scenarios in which they could be separated from their parents.
“We are writing to you, members of Congress responsible for overseeing DHS, because we have a professional obligation to raise our grave concerns about DHS’s reattempt to separate children from their families in response to a federal court order to release the children when it is within ICE discretion to release the families intact,” the medical experts wrote. “We advocate for the release of immigrant detainees who present no threat to communities to prevent both the harm of family and children separation and the risk of spread and infection of COVID-19.”
The doctors said they shared their “concerns about the serious medical and mental health risks associated with the detention of families, exacerbated by the coronavirus spreading in congregate settings” with the lead official in charge of the DHS civil rights division last week.
Allen, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California Riverside School of Medicine, and McPherson, who teaches fellows at the LSU Health Sciences University in Shreveport, Louisiana, have been outspoken on the issues of immigrant children in custody and the policy that led to separation of families at the border in 2018.
"That ICE is considering repeating one of the darkest moments of this administration — separating children from their families — knowing this will cause serious medical and psychological harm to children is nothing less than willful endangerment,” said Dana Gold, senior counsel at the Government Accountability Project and attorney for Allen, McPherson, and Rich. “That DHS’s own medical and mental health experts need to speak up to try to prevent this agency from inflicting imminent harm on innocent children is another grotesque example of the government ignoring its medical experts. If we’ve learned anything over the past few months, this is a recipe for disaster."
As of Thursday, there were 319 immigrants — at least 157 of them children — in custody at the three family detention centers. At the Karnes County Residential Center in Texas, there are 24 current cases of COVID-19 among immigrant families detained there. There have been 35 total cases at the facility. There have been no positive cases at the other two ICE family detention centers.
Last week, US government officials told a federal judge that immigrant families should not be released from custody. Attorneys for the Trump administration said the court should deny a motion for a preliminary injunction to promptly release all families in ICE detention. Immigrant advocates said the filing sets up a potential separation of children from their parents in custody as the government looks to comply with a separate order to release the children.
Attorneys for ICE have denied allegations that it was incapable of protecting immigrant families from contracting COVID-19. Government attorneys also pushed back against the claim that immigrant families face irreparable harm in being forced to choose between family separation or continued detention of children who have been ordered to be released.
Last month, US District Judge Dolly Gee, who oversees a 1997 court settlement known as the Flores agreement that says the government can't detain children for more than 20 days, ordered the release of immigrant minors at ICE facilities by July 17. Previously, an independent monitor tasked with tracking how children in family detention centers are treated as part of the court agreement said the risk of immigrant minors and families contracting coronavirus inside one of the facilities continued to grow because some staffers failed to wear masks or observe social distancing requirements.
“Despite the overwhelming warning and recommendation of the medical community, DHS has ignored the advice of its own experts, continuing to keep children in detention for months, above and beyond the court-mandated 20-day limit,” the doctors wrote. “DHS has also failed to release most of the immigrants from detention facilities around the country, contrary to the advice of medical and public health efforts. Worse, DHS is now attempting to reinstate the practice of family separation using a federal court order as justification.”
Adolfo Flores contributed reporting.