MARSHALL COUNTY —Kansas Bureau of Investigation agents and the Marshall County Sheriff's Office are conducting a search for a missing man from Blue Rapids, Kansas, who was last seen on the night of July 4, according to a media release from the KBI.

On Saturday the Marshall County Sheriff’s Office requested KBI assistance in the disappearance of Camoran M. Shoptese, 36. Shoptese was last seen around 10:30 p.m. on Thursday at 709 Chestnut Street in Blue Rapids.

He is a Native American, approximately 6 foot 1 inch tall, 200 pounds has short black hair, brown eyes, and black tattoos covering his neck and chest. 

Investigators suspect foul play connected to his disappearance. A 2008 black Chevy Colorado may be associated with the case. 

Anyone with information about this investigation is asked to call the KBI at 1-800-KS-CRIME. Anonymous tips can also be submitted online at <a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kbi.ks.gov%2Fsar%3Ffbclid%3DIwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1e7ZL138ni69usCinvK-vm4J9bZCvL5kgab7VWmF64INP6NYuXs5Ofpac_aem_BaV1wFFE3UwONHrevYC3Jg&amp;h=AT3pGv5r88CExbjzo7m3fbz-naLw8xZZNA8_Rr2PqxVp6OPnmpOUle76PJMn3BSpk2Ku1eecc5K7vBUKmLyJLc0LJrRTgGu6yqURJH_e2sZYxKh-SbtbOkEAec-JEK5tWK_Yl-U&amp;__tn__=-UK-R&amp;c[0]=AT1rZVuR_5-M6b0z16gILIssnkfCfUP27JJnC-wN2yf1LI_L201xvpDB5x1SesivwvOBiD2PNF7dpKz-pge3c4Ho2i6r14jyl-oweUgJCUuPePkDeV8EUcxnhDeUpdxAjaqgMdW-iVHKKpjp9N3q_3MhYQVAAjUmddfQ0fk5QinnfZbONWCsuJUJESc6Y4cE80BgL4QGnWhUR_m9a3fOvnbvVxEosJti-P5R" target="_blank">https://www.kbi.ks.gov/sar</a>. Rural property owners in the area are also asked to check for and report any suspicious activity they might notice on their land.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/7/1720385919016.png" alt="Camoran Shoptese-photo KBI" />
 <figcaption>Camoran Shoptese-photo KBI</figcaption>
 </figure>MARSHALL COUNTY —Kansas Bureau of Investigation agents and the Marshall County Sheriff's Office are conducting a search for a missing man from Blue Rapids, Kansas, who was last seen on the night of July 4, according to a media release from the KBI.On Saturday the Marshall County Sheriff’s Office requested KBI assistance in the disappearance of Camoran M. Shoptese, 36. Shoptese was last seen around 10:30 p.m. on Thursday at 709 Chestnut Street in Blue Rapids.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/7/1720385898695.png" alt="Camoran Shoptese-photo KBI" />
 <figcaption>Camoran Shoptese-photo KBI</figcaption>
 </figure>He is a Native American, approximately 6 foot 1 inch tall, 200 pounds has short black hair, brown eyes, and black tattoos covering his neck and chest. Investigators suspect foul play connected to his disappearance. A 2008 black Chevy Colorado may be associated with the case. Anyone with information about this investigation is asked to call the KBI at 1-800-KS-CRIME. Anonymous tips can also be submitted online at <a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kbi.ks.gov%2Fsar%3Ffbclid%3DIwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1e7ZL138ni69usCinvK-vm4J9bZCvL5kgab7VWmF64INP6NYuXs5Ofpac_aem_BaV1wFFE3UwONHrevYC3Jg&amp;h=AT3pGv5r88CExbjzo7m3fbz-naLw8xZZNA8_Rr2PqxVp6OPnmpOUle76PJMn3BSpk2Ku1eecc5K7vBUKmLyJLc0LJrRTgGu6yqURJH_e2sZYxKh-SbtbOkEAec-JEK5tWK_Yl-U&amp;__tn__=-UK-R&amp;c[0]=AT1rZVuR_5-M6b0z16gILIssnkfCfUP27JJnC-wN2yf1LI_L201xvpDB5x1SesivwvOBiD2PNF7dpKz-pge3c4Ho2i6r14jyl-oweUgJCUuPePkDeV8EUcxnhDeUpdxAjaqgMdW-iVHKKpjp9N3q_3MhYQVAAjUmddfQ0fk5QinnfZbONWCsuJUJESc6Y4cE80BgL4QGnWhUR_m9a3fOvnbvVxEosJti-P5R" target="_blank">https://www.kbi.ks.gov/sar</a>. Rural property owners in the area are also asked to check for and report any suspicious activity they might notice on their land.

KBI: Foul play suspected in disappearance of Kan. man

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>

WASHINGTON — The stalemate over the current farm bill may be solidifying a new era in farm politics as it joins the last three farm bills in a trend of delays and partisan division — a contrast from the legislation’s history of bipartisanship.

Every five years, Congress is tasked with drafting a new federal farm bill. The omnibus law that began 90 years ago as various kinds of payments to support farmers now has an impact far beyond the farm, with programs to create wildlife habitat, address climate change and provide the nation’s largest federal nutrition program.

The current farm bill process, already nearly a year behind schedule, is at an impasse as Democrats and Republicans clash over how to pay for the bill and whether to place limits on nutrition and climate programs. The previous farm bill expired in September 2023 and has been extended through the end of this September.

Historically, farm bills were completed within a few months of their expiration date. Ten of the 13 farm bills since 1965 were enacted by December 31 in the year of their expirations. But three of the four farm bills since 2008 went beyond that date.

The last three bills — including the 2018 bill, which is the one recent version that passed on time — each had partisan disagreements about spending.

The trend represents a change in how the once-bipartisan legislation is viewed.

“The last two farm bills were the anomaly,” said Jonathan Coppess, a professor of Agricultural Law and Policy at the University of Illinois who has written a history of the farm bill. “Now that it has been three in a row, I’m not sure that holds.”

A recent&nbsp;<a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45210.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes that starting in 2008, farm bills have been subject to delays, vetoes and insufficient votes to pass on the floor.

The report concluded: “Over time, farm bills have tended to become more complicated and politically sensitive. As a result, the timeline for reauthorization has become less certain.”

That uncertainty is true of the current farm bill, as Republicans in the House and Senate push for spending limits that Democrats say are non-starters.

“I don’t think we’re close to getting a farm bill done until the folks who are negotiating the farm bill are realistic about what’s doable within a constrained resource environment,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview on the radio program&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DjdcUT0r3o" target="_blank">AgriTalk</a>&nbsp;June 21.

The Republican-led House Agriculture Committee approved its farm bill proposal&nbsp;<a href="https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/05/24/farm-bill-advances-from-u-s-house-panel-but-faces-a-tough-row-to-hoe/" target="_blank">largely on party lines</a>&nbsp;at the end of May, after hours of debate and complaints from Democrats that the process had not been as bipartisan as in years past.

Four Democrats voted for the bill in committee, but they joined 20 other Democrats on the committee in a “dissenting views” letter expressing “genuine concern over the trajectory of the Majority’s partisan farm bill” — which they predicted would be stuck in delay and dysfunction without significant changes.

The Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to vote. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee have each put forward contrasting bills and expressed their frustration.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie&nbsp; Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who is retiring after this term, has called the process the “most frustrating” of her career and said she would not let the Republican approach for the farm bill be her legacy.

“I’ve actually been involved in six farm bills and led on three of them, and this has been the most frustrating time,” said Stabenow&nbsp;<a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2024/06/26/stabenow-says-gop-farm-bill-is-not-balanced-and-wont-pass-through-the-us-senate/" target="_blank">in an interview with&nbsp;Michigan Advance</a>&nbsp;at the end of June. “Because it’s so much more partisan than usual and particularly around food assistance.”

Partisan division is not uncommon in today’s Congress but is notable on the farm bill, which had historically brought together lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. Bipartisan support can be necessary for final passage because the size of the $1.5 trillion farm bill means it inevitably loses some votes from fiscal conservatives and others.

“If you don’t have a bipartisan bill, this is not going to happen, and that is no matter who’s in charge. The margins are too close to be able to get this done without bipartisan support,” said Collin Peterson, a former Democratic House member from Minnesota and Agriculture Committee Chairman.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/" target="_blank">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats this year is a funding calculation that would place limits on the “Thrifty Food Plan” formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.

Republicans are using the limits to offset other spending in the bill on crop subsidies. The top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, said he wants to put “more farm in the farm bill.”

Peterson, who is now the head of an eponymous consulting firm, said in an interview with States Newsroom that Republicans would likely have to make changes to the nutrition title to get a bill to final passage.

“It is unrealistic to think they are going to get this done without significant changes in that part of the bill,” he said.

The nutrition program that is at the center of the impasse was added to the legislation 50 years ago to help build a coalition of wide-ranging bipartisan support.

Lawmakers added the nutrition title to the farm bill in 1973, a move that widened the vested interest in the bill in the House. Lawmakers who wanted to increase payments for cotton and wheat farmers in their districts were able to bring in support from representatives from districts whose citizens could benefit from food aid.

“That was the first coalition building between the two interests,” Coppess said. “But it was pretty intense. And it was an uneasy alliance from the start.”

Since then, the farm bill in many ways has become a food bill. Three-quarters of the mandatory spending in the bill falls under the nutrition title, which includes SNAP, the largest U.S. program that addresses hunger.

The program, formerly called food stamps, supplements food budgets for low-income households. Anti-hunger groups have joined the outside interests pushing for the bill every five years.

But with such a large funding line, the nutrition program has become a target for Republicans who want to cut it to offset other spending in the bill.

“The dispute is all the pay-fors,” Peterson said. “And that has been the issue for the last three farm bills and issue on this one as well.”

Peterson, who was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee for the 2008 farm bill and was the top Democrat on the committee for the 2013 and 2018 bills, said partisan division on the committee is not unfamiliar at this phase of the process.

The farm bills he worked on also had partisan votes in the House but eventually found support from both sides after conferencing with the Senate.

“At the end of the day, every one of those bills was partisan, until we got through the conference committee, and then at that point it was bipartisan, because the Senate brought some of that to the table,” Peterson said. “So, kind of, what’s going on here went on the last three farm bills.”

The most recent farm bill in 2018 was marked by contentious partisan debate centered on SNAP’s work requirements and other eligibility rules.

The House Agriculture Committee’s bill that year initially failed on the House floor and later squeaked through on a 213-211 vote. Twenty Republicans joined all House Democrats in voting against that bill.

After reconciling with the Senate bill and the removal of some of the contentious changes to SNAP, most Democrats flipped their votes in support and the House agreed to the final conference report in a bipartisan vote of 369-47. The dissenting votes included 44 Republicans and three Democrats.

The partisan division over the nutrition title creates new fault lines for the farm bill.

Historically, farm bill alliances were more regional than partisan. They were built on a common ground of support for shared crops or producers: cotton in the South, corn in the Midwest and wheat in the Western Plains.

“What was our biggest issue back in the four farm bills that I wrote was not Republican versus Democrat. It was usually Midwest against the Southeast or the Northeast or the Southwest from a crop standpoint,” former Senator Saxby Chambliss said in an interview.

Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, was on the House Agriculture Committee from 1995 to 2002 and the Senate Agriculture Committee 2005 to 2011, which included a stint as chairman and ranking member.

“There’s a different political dynamic that exists in the Senate today that did not exist when I was there,”&nbsp; Chambliss said. “How much of that bleeds into the farm bill? I don’t know the answer to that, but obviously it’s a little more acrimonious than what I ever experienced.”

As partisan politics have become more entrenched in regions of the country, with the South becoming more closely aligned with the Republican Party, it has played out in farm-bill politics.

“You see a staunch realignment around where the regional and the partisan are now very similar,” said Coppess.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/7/1625596705829.png" alt="Partisan gridlock in Congress has led to a stalemate on the current farm bill, which provides crop subsidies and nutrition assistance. Hays Post photo" />
 <figcaption>Partisan gridlock in Congress has led to a stalemate on the current farm bill, which provides crop subsidies and nutrition assistance. Hays Post photo</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>WASHINGTON — The stalemate over the current farm bill may be solidifying a new era in farm politics as it joins the last three farm bills in a trend of delays and partisan division — a contrast from the legislation’s history of bipartisanship.Every five years, Congress is tasked with drafting a new federal farm bill. The omnibus law that began 90 years ago as various kinds of payments to support farmers now has an impact far beyond the farm, with programs to create wildlife habitat, address climate change and provide the nation’s largest federal nutrition program.The current farm bill process, already nearly a year behind schedule, is at an impasse as Democrats and Republicans clash over how to pay for the bill and whether to place limits on nutrition and climate programs. The previous farm bill expired in September 2023 and has been extended through the end of this September.Historically, farm bills were completed within a few months of their expiration date. Ten of the 13 farm bills since 1965 were enacted by December 31 in the year of their expirations. But three of the four farm bills since 2008 went beyond that date.The last three bills — including the 2018 bill, which is the one recent version that passed on time — each had partisan disagreements about spending.The trend represents a change in how the once-bipartisan legislation is viewed.“The last two farm bills were the anomaly,” said Jonathan Coppess, a professor of Agricultural Law and Policy at the University of Illinois who has written a history of the farm bill. “Now that it has been three in a row, I’m not sure that holds.”A recent&nbsp;<a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45210.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes that starting in 2008, farm bills have been subject to delays, vetoes and insufficient votes to pass on the floor.The report concluded: “Over time, farm bills have tended to become more complicated and politically sensitive. As a result, the timeline for reauthorization has become less certain.”<h2>Spending debate</h2>That uncertainty is true of the current farm bill, as Republicans in the House and Senate push for spending limits that Democrats say are non-starters.“I don’t think we’re close to getting a farm bill done until the folks who are negotiating the farm bill are realistic about what’s doable within a constrained resource environment,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview on the radio program&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DjdcUT0r3o" target="_blank">AgriTalk</a>&nbsp;June 21.The Republican-led House Agriculture Committee approved its farm bill proposal&nbsp;<a href="https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/05/24/farm-bill-advances-from-u-s-house-panel-but-faces-a-tough-row-to-hoe/" target="_blank">largely on party lines</a>&nbsp;at the end of May, after hours of debate and complaints from Democrats that the process had not been as bipartisan as in years past.Four Democrats voted for the bill in committee, but they joined 20 other Democrats on the committee in a “dissenting views” letter expressing “genuine concern over the trajectory of the Majority’s partisan farm bill” — which they predicted would be stuck in delay and dysfunction without significant changes.The Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to vote. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee have each put forward contrasting bills and expressed their frustration.<h2>‘The most frustrating time’</h2>Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie&nbsp; Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who is retiring after this term, has called the process the “most frustrating” of her career and said she would not let the Republican approach for the farm bill be her legacy.“I’ve actually been involved in six farm bills and led on three of them, and this has been the most frustrating time,” said Stabenow&nbsp;<a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2024/06/26/stabenow-says-gop-farm-bill-is-not-balanced-and-wont-pass-through-the-us-senate/" target="_blank">in an interview with&nbsp;Michigan Advance</a>&nbsp;at the end of June. “Because it’s so much more partisan than usual and particularly around food assistance.”Partisan division is not uncommon in today’s Congress but is notable on the farm bill, which had historically brought together lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. Bipartisan support can be necessary for final passage because the size of the $1.5 trillion farm bill means it inevitably loses some votes from fiscal conservatives and others.“If you don’t have a bipartisan bill, this is not going to happen, and that is no matter who’s in charge. The margins are too close to be able to get this done without bipartisan support,” said Collin Peterson, a former Democratic House member from Minnesota and Agriculture Committee Chairman.The&nbsp;<a href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/" target="_blank">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats this year is a funding calculation that would place limits on the “Thrifty Food Plan” formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.Republicans are using the limits to offset other spending in the bill on crop subsidies. The top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, said he wants to put “more farm in the farm bill.”Peterson, who is now the head of an eponymous consulting firm, said in an interview with States Newsroom that Republicans would likely have to make changes to the nutrition title to get a bill to final passage.“It is unrealistic to think they are going to get this done without significant changes in that part of the bill,” he said.<h2>‘An uneasy alliance’ from the start</h2>The nutrition program that is at the center of the impasse was added to the legislation 50 years ago to help build a coalition of wide-ranging bipartisan support.Lawmakers added the nutrition title to the farm bill in 1973, a move that widened the vested interest in the bill in the House. Lawmakers who wanted to increase payments for cotton and wheat farmers in their districts were able to bring in support from representatives from districts whose citizens could benefit from food aid.“That was the first coalition building between the two interests,” Coppess said. “But it was pretty intense. And it was an uneasy alliance from the start.”Since then, the farm bill in many ways has become a food bill. Three-quarters of the mandatory spending in the bill falls under the nutrition title, which includes SNAP, the largest U.S. program that addresses hunger.The program, formerly called food stamps, supplements food budgets for low-income households. Anti-hunger groups have joined the outside interests pushing for the bill every five years.But with such a large funding line, the nutrition program has become a target for Republicans who want to cut it to offset other spending in the bill.“The dispute is all the pay-fors,” Peterson said. “And that has been the issue for the last three farm bills and issue on this one as well.”Peterson, who was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee for the 2008 farm bill and was the top Democrat on the committee for the 2013 and 2018 bills, said partisan division on the committee is not unfamiliar at this phase of the process.The farm bills he worked on also had partisan votes in the House but eventually found support from both sides after conferencing with the Senate.“At the end of the day, every one of those bills was partisan, until we got through the conference committee, and then at that point it was bipartisan, because the Senate brought some of that to the table,” Peterson said. “So, kind of, what’s going on here went on the last three farm bills.”The most recent farm bill in 2018 was marked by contentious partisan debate centered on SNAP’s work requirements and other eligibility rules.The House Agriculture Committee’s bill that year initially failed on the House floor and later squeaked through on a 213-211 vote. Twenty Republicans joined all House Democrats in voting against that bill.After reconciling with the Senate bill and the removal of some of the contentious changes to SNAP, most Democrats flipped their votes in support and the House agreed to the final conference report in a bipartisan vote of 369-47. The dissenting votes included 44 Republicans and three Democrats.<h2>A trend toward fracture</h2>The partisan division over the nutrition title creates new fault lines for the farm bill.Historically, farm bill alliances were more regional than partisan. They were built on a common ground of support for shared crops or producers: cotton in the South, corn in the Midwest and wheat in the Western Plains.“What was our biggest issue back in the four farm bills that I wrote was not Republican versus Democrat. It was usually Midwest against the Southeast or the Northeast or the Southwest from a crop standpoint,” former Senator Saxby Chambliss said in an interview.Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, was on the House Agriculture Committee from 1995 to 2002 and the Senate Agriculture Committee 2005 to 2011, which included a stint as chairman and ranking member.“There’s a different political dynamic that exists in the Senate today that did not exist when I was there,”&nbsp; Chambliss said. “How much of that bleeds into the farm bill? I don’t know the answer to that, but obviously it’s a little more acrimonious than what I ever experienced.”As partisan politics have become more entrenched in regions of the country, with the South becoming more closely aligned with the Republican Party, it has played out in farm-bill politics.“You see a staunch realignment around where the regional and the partisan are now very similar,” said Coppess.

‘Frustrating’ partisan stalemate: the new normal for farm bills?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ended its term by ruling for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, a decision that almost certainly means Donald Trump won't stand trial before the November election. That closely watched ruling, which drew sharp dissent from the minority justices, was among a cluster of consequential opinions handed down in the court's busy final few weeks.

Here's a look at the major cases the court decided this year.

Ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution in a decision that extends the delay in Donald Trump's trial in Washington on charges of election interference and all but rules out a trial before the November election. The justices returned the case to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over a trial. She must now sort out what is left of special counsel Jack Smith's indictment of the former president.

Majority: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Dissent: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

Ruled unanimously that states cannot invoke the post-Civil War “insurrection clause” to keep candidates for president and Congress off the ballot. The justices reversed a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court finding that former President Donald Trump, as part of his effort to overturn his election loss in 2020, intentionally organized and incited the crowd of supporters who violently attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

Majority (unsigned opinion): Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett (in part)

Concurring in judgment: Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Barrett

Narrowed a federal obstruction charge that has been used against hundreds of people who took part in the violent assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as well as Trump. The court ruled in the case of a former Pennsylvania police officer and returned it to a lower court to determine if the obstruction charge, enacted in 2002 and meant to discourage tampering with documents sought in investigations, can be used against him. The decision also could have implications for Trump's prosecution on election interference charges.

Majority: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Jackson

Unanimously threw out a legal challenge from anti-abortion doctors to the FDA's initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 and more recent decisions easing access to the medication, one of two pills used in medication abortions. The justices determined that the doctors did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue, reversing an appellate ruling that would have rolled back some FDA decisions that make mifepristone easier to obtain, including receiving the drug by mail, and allow it to be used for longer in pregnancy.

Majority: Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson

Overturned a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-fish-e0c83212c892887860f7800c1ae1e02b">40-year-old decision</a>&nbsp;that has been cited thousands of times in federal court cases and used to uphold regulations on the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections. The court decision colloquially known as Chevron, long targeted by conservative and business interests, called on judges to defer to federal regulators when the words of a statute are not crystal clear. The Supreme Court held that judges, not regulators, should decide the meaning of federal laws.

Majority: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett

Upheld a 1994 law intended to protect victims of domestic violence. The law prohibits people who are under domestic violence restraining orders from having guns. The 8-1 decision reversed an appellate ruling striking down the law based on the Supreme Court's 2022 decision expanding gun rights.

Majority: Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson

Upheld a tax on foreign income that was enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by Trump. By a 7-2 vote, the justices rejected an effort by conservative and business interests to strike down the tax as a violation of the Constitution, which might have doomed a much-discussed but never-enacted wealth tax on billionaires.

Majority: Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson

Preserved a Republican-held South Carolina congressional district in a 6-3 decision, reversing a lower court ruling that found the state Legislature discriminated against Black voters. Dissenting liberal justices warned the court was insulating states from claims of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. State lawmakers moved 30,000 Black residents out of the district to strengthen Rep. Nancy Mace's hold on it.

Majority: Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett

Struck down a ban on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-bump-stocks-b3bd1b4163d78514a6d5acc5b44c8b3d">bump stocks</a>, rapid-fire gun accessories used in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/las-vegas-mass-shooting">deadliest mass shooting</a>&nbsp;in modern U.S. history. The 6-3 decision found that the Trump administration overstepped when it changed course from predecessors and banned bump stocks, which allow a rate of fire comparable to machine guns. In a dissent, liberal justices warned the decision could have “deadly consequences."

Majority: Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett

Upheld the method of funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which does not depend on yearly appropriations from Congress. By a 7-2 vote, the court reversed a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found the funding structure violated the Constitution.

Majority: Thomas, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson

The court unanimously cleared the way for the National Rifle Association to sue a former New York state official. Backed in part by the Biden administration and represented by the ACLU, the gun-rights group said Maria Vullo pressured companies to blacklist it following the mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida. The opinion said the First Amendment prohibits government officials from using their power to punish or suppress speech.

Majority: Sotomayor, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson

By a 5-4 vote, rejected a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/purdue-pharma-trustee-bankruptcy-sackler-opioid-oxycontin-713134927e34ef071803b3983ddd01ac">nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma</a>&nbsp;that would have allocated billions of dollars to combat&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/opioids">the opioid epidemic</a>, but also provided a legal shield for members of the Sackler family who own the company. The settlement had been on hold since last summer after the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in.

Majority: Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Barrett, Jackson

Dissent: Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan

Voted 5-4 to pause the Environmental Protection Agency’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-epa-good-neighbor-air-pollution-rules-9d29c120d276f4bad5b3ea2c75d107ff">air pollution-fighting “good neighbor” plan</a>&nbsp;while legal challenges continue, in response to a plea from Republican-led, energy-producing states and the steel industry.

Majority: Gorsuch, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh

Dissent: Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson

Ruled 6-3 that people facing civil fraud complaints from the Securities and Exchange Commission have the right to a jury trial in federal court, rather than be limited to an in-house proceeding. The decision stripped the agency of a major tool in fighting securities fraud and could have far-reaching effects on other regulatory agencies.

Threw out a lawsuit by Republican-led states that claimed federal officials unconstitutionally coerced social media platforms to take down controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security. The court voted 6-3 that the states and other parties had no legal right, or standing, to sue over their claim that the government leaned on the platforms to limit conservative points of view.

Majority: Barrett, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Jackson

In a limited ruling, the court kept on hold&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-florida-texas-19180ad0a9bdf48ddb77f14a5e335545">social media laws in Texas and Florida</a>&nbsp;that would limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users. But the court's majority recognized that the platforms are much like newspapers and have a constitutional right to make choices about what to include and exclude from their space. The cases will continue in federal appeals courts: One court had upheld the Texas' law; another found the Florida law probably is unconstitutional.

Majority: Kagan, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson

Concurring in the judgment: Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch

The Supreme Court cleared the way for Idaho hospitals to provide emergency abortions, for now. In a limited order, the court found it should not have gotten involved in the case over Idaho’s strict abortion ban so quickly. By a 6-3 vote it reinstated a lower court order that had allowed hospitals in the state to perform emergency abortions to protect a pregnant patient’s health.

Majority: Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson

The justices found that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places. The majority found such laws don't violate the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment when shelter space is lacking. The opinion overturned an appeals court ruling that applied to nine states in the West, including California, which is home to one-third of the nation's homeless population.

Majority: Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/12/1672235865420.png" alt="Supreme Court Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States" />
 <figcaption>Supreme Court Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ended its term by ruling for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, a decision that almost certainly means Donald Trump won't stand trial before the November election. That closely watched ruling, which drew sharp dissent from the minority justices, was among a cluster of consequential opinions handed down in the court's busy final few weeks.Here's a look at the major cases the court decided this year.<h2>Presidential immunity</h2>Ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution in a decision that extends the delay in Donald Trump's trial in Washington on charges of election interference and all but rules out a trial before the November election. The justices returned the case to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over a trial. She must now sort out what is left of special counsel Jack Smith's indictment of the former president.Majority: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney BarrettDissent: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson<h2>Insurrection clause</h2>Ruled unanimously that states cannot invoke the post-Civil War “insurrection clause” to keep candidates for president and Congress off the ballot. The justices reversed a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court finding that former President Donald Trump, as part of his effort to overturn his election loss in 2020, intentionally organized and incited the crowd of supporters who violently attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.Majority (unsigned opinion): Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett (in part)Concurring in judgment: Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Barrett<h2>Jan. 6</h2>Narrowed a federal obstruction charge that has been used against hundreds of people who took part in the violent assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as well as Trump. The court ruled in the case of a former Pennsylvania police officer and returned it to a lower court to determine if the obstruction charge, enacted in 2002 and meant to discourage tampering with documents sought in investigations, can be used against him. The decision also could have implications for Trump's prosecution on election interference charges.Majority: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, JacksonDissent: Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan<h2>Abortion pill</h2>Unanimously threw out a legal challenge from anti-abortion doctors to the FDA's initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 and more recent decisions easing access to the medication, one of two pills used in medication abortions. The justices determined that the doctors did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue, reversing an appellate ruling that would have rolled back some FDA decisions that make mifepristone easier to obtain, including receiving the drug by mail, and allow it to be used for longer in pregnancy.Majority: Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson<h2>Chevron</h2>Overturned a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-fish-e0c83212c892887860f7800c1ae1e02b">40-year-old decision</a>&nbsp;that has been cited thousands of times in federal court cases and used to uphold regulations on the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections. The court decision colloquially known as Chevron, long targeted by conservative and business interests, called on judges to defer to federal regulators when the words of a statute are not crystal clear. The Supreme Court held that judges, not regulators, should decide the meaning of federal laws.Majority: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, BarrettDissent: Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson<h2>Guns</h2>Upheld a 1994 law intended to protect victims of domestic violence. The law prohibits people who are under domestic violence restraining orders from having guns. The 8-1 decision reversed an appellate ruling striking down the law based on the Supreme Court's 2022 decision expanding gun rights.Majority: Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, JacksonDissent: Thomas<h2>Wealth tax</h2>Upheld a tax on foreign income that was enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by Trump. By a 7-2 vote, the justices rejected an effort by conservative and business interests to strike down the tax as a violation of the Constitution, which might have doomed a much-discussed but never-enacted wealth tax on billionaires.Majority: Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, JacksonConcurring in judgment: Barrett, AlitoDissent: Thomas, Gorsuch<h2>Redistricting</h2>Preserved a Republican-held South Carolina congressional district in a 6-3 decision, reversing a lower court ruling that found the state Legislature discriminated against Black voters. Dissenting liberal justices warned the court was insulating states from claims of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. State lawmakers moved 30,000 Black residents out of the district to strengthen Rep. Nancy Mace's hold on it.Majority: Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, BarrettDissent: Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson<h2>Bump stocks</h2>Struck down a ban on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-bump-stocks-b3bd1b4163d78514a6d5acc5b44c8b3d">bump stocks</a>, rapid-fire gun accessories used in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/las-vegas-mass-shooting">deadliest mass shooting</a>&nbsp;in modern U.S. history. The 6-3 decision found that the Trump administration overstepped when it changed course from predecessors and banned bump stocks, which allow a rate of fire comparable to machine guns. In a dissent, liberal justices warned the decision could have “deadly consequences."Majority: Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, BarrettDissent: Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson<h2>Consumer Protection</h2>Upheld the method of funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which does not depend on yearly appropriations from Congress. By a 7-2 vote, the court reversed a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found the funding structure violated the Constitution.Majority: Thomas, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, JacksonDissent: Alito, Gorsuch<h2>NRA and free speech</h2>The court unanimously cleared the way for the National Rifle Association to sue a former New York state official. Backed in part by the Biden administration and represented by the ACLU, the gun-rights group said Maria Vullo pressured companies to blacklist it following the mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida. The opinion said the First Amendment prohibits government officials from using their power to punish or suppress speech.Majority: Sotomayor, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson<h2>Purdue Pharma</h2>By a 5-4 vote, rejected a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/purdue-pharma-trustee-bankruptcy-sackler-opioid-oxycontin-713134927e34ef071803b3983ddd01ac">nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma</a>&nbsp;that would have allocated billions of dollars to combat&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/opioids">the opioid epidemic</a>, but also provided a legal shield for members of the Sackler family who own the company. The settlement had been on hold since last summer after the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in.Majority: Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Barrett, JacksonDissent: Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan<h2>Air pollution</h2>Voted 5-4 to pause the Environmental Protection Agency’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-epa-good-neighbor-air-pollution-rules-9d29c120d276f4bad5b3ea2c75d107ff">air pollution-fighting “good neighbor” plan</a>&nbsp;while legal challenges continue, in response to a plea from Republican-led, energy-producing states and the steel industry.Majority: Gorsuch, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, KavanaughDissent: Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson<h2>SEC</h2>Ruled 6-3 that people facing civil fraud complaints from the Securities and Exchange Commission have the right to a jury trial in federal court, rather than be limited to an in-house proceeding. The decision stripped the agency of a major tool in fighting securities fraud and could have far-reaching effects on other regulatory agencies.Majority: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, BarrettDissent: Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson<h2>Social media and governmental coercion</h2>Threw out a lawsuit by Republican-led states that claimed federal officials unconstitutionally coerced social media platforms to take down controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security. The court voted 6-3 that the states and other parties had no legal right, or standing, to sue over their claim that the government leaned on the platforms to limit conservative points of view.Majority: Barrett, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, JacksonDissent: Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch<h2>Social media and state regulation</h2>In a limited ruling, the court kept on hold&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-florida-texas-19180ad0a9bdf48ddb77f14a5e335545">social media laws in Texas and Florida</a>&nbsp;that would limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users. But the court's majority recognized that the platforms are much like newspapers and have a constitutional right to make choices about what to include and exclude from their space. The cases will continue in federal appeals courts: One court had upheld the Texas' law; another found the Florida law probably is unconstitutional.Majority: Kagan, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, JacksonConcurring in the judgment: Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch<h2>Emergency abortions</h2>The Supreme Court cleared the way for Idaho hospitals to provide emergency abortions, for now. In a limited order, the court found it should not have gotten involved in the case over Idaho’s strict abortion ban so quickly. By a 6-3 vote it reinstated a lower court order that had allowed hospitals in the state to perform emergency abortions to protect a pregnant patient’s health.Majority: Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, JacksonDissent: Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch<h2>Homelessness</h2>The justices found that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places. The majority found such laws don't violate the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment when shelter space is lacking. The opinion overturned an appeals court ruling that applied to nine states in the West, including California, which is home to one-third of the nation's homeless population.Majority: Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kavanaugh, BarrettDissent: Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson

Highlights from Supreme Court term: Rulings on Trump, abortion, guns and homelessness

KANSAS CITY — It was busy night for first responders at the Kenney Chesney&nbsp;<a href="https://www.chiefs.com/schedule/event-calendar/kenny-chesney-sung-goes-down-2024-tour" target="_blank">Sun Goes Down 2024 Tour</a>&nbsp;at Arrowhead Stadium Saturday night.&nbsp;

Country music fans were allowed into the stadium at 2 p.m. and the concert started at 5 p.m.&nbsp; Three hours in the heat made it difficult for some.

Emergency crews responded to 107 calls for service during the concert&nbsp; according to KC Fire Department Battalion Chief Michael Hopkins.

 All but 4 of those calls were handled by on-site staff. Four patients were transported to a local hospital for further evaluation. The calls for service included heat related issues and intoxication and with various other ailments.

KANSAS CITY — It was busy night for first responders at the Kenney Chesney&nbsp;<a href="https://www.chiefs.com/schedule/event-calendar/kenny-chesney-sung-goes-down-2024-tour" target="_blank">Sun Goes Down 2024 Tour</a>&nbsp;at Arrowhead Stadium Saturday night.&nbsp;Country music fans were allowed into the stadium at 2 p.m. and the concert started at 5 p.m.&nbsp; Three hours in the heat made it difficult for some.Emergency crews responded to 107 calls for service during the concert&nbsp; according to KC Fire Department Battalion Chief Michael Hopkins. All but 4 of those calls were handled by on-site staff. Four patients were transported to a local hospital for further evaluation. The calls for service included heat related issues and intoxication and with various other ailments.

KC emergency crews respond to 107 calls at Kenny Chesney concert

HOUSTON (AP)—The crew of a NASA mission to Mars emerged from their craft after a yearlong voyage that never left Earth.

The four volunteer crew members spent more than 12 months inside NASA's first simulated Mars environment at Johnson Space Center in Houston, coming out of the artificial alien enviroment Saturday around 5 p.m.

Kelly Haston, Anca Selariu, Ross Brockwell and Nathan Jones entered the 3D-printed habitat on June 25, 2023, as the maiden crew of the space agency's&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/chapea/">Crew Health and Performance Exploration Analog</a>&nbsp;project.

Haston, the mission commander, began with a simple, “Hello.”

“It’s actually just so wonderful to be able to say ‘hello’ to you all,” she said.

Jones, a physician and the mission medical officer, said their 378 days in confinement “went by quickly.”

The quartet lived and worked inside the space of 17,000 square feet to simulate a mission to the red planet, the fourth from the sun and a frequent focus of discussion among scientists and sci-fi fans alike concerning a possible voyage taking humans beyond our moon.

The first CHAPEA crew focused on establishing possible conditions for future Mars operations through simulated spacewalks, dubbed “Marswalks,” as well as growing and harvesting vegetables to supplement their provisions and maintaining the habitat and their equipment.

They also worked through challenges a real Mars crew would be expected to experience including limited resources, isolation and delays in communication of up to 22 minutes with their home planet on the other side of the habitat's walls, NASA said.

Two additional CHAPEA missions are planned and crews will continue conducting simulated spacewalks and gathering data on factors related to physical and behavioral health and performance, NASA said.

Steve Koerner, deputy director of Johnson Space Center, said most of the first crew's experimentation focused on nutrition and how that affected their performance. The work was “crucial science as we prepare to send people on to the red planet,” he said.

“They've been separated from their families, placed on a carefully prescribed meal plan and undergone a lot of observation,” Koerner said.

“Mars is our goal,” he said, calling the project an important step in America's intent to be a leader in the global space exploration effort.

Emerging after a knock on the habitat's door by Kjell Lindgren, an astronaut and the deputy director of flight operations, the four volunteers spoke of the gratitude they had for each other and those who waited patiently outside, as well as lessons learned about a prospective manned mission to Mars and life on Earth.

Brockwell, the crew's flight engineer, said the mission showed him the importance of living sustainably for the benefit of everyone on Earth.

“I’m very grateful to have had this incredible opportunity to live for a year within the spirit of planetary adventure towards an exciting future, and I’m grateful for the chance to live the idea that we must utilise resources no faster than they can be replenished and produce waste no faster than they can be processed back into resources," Brockwell said.

“We cannot live, dream, create or explore on any significant timeframe if we don’t live these principles, but if we do, we can achieve and sustain amazing and inspiring things like exploring other worlds," he said.

Science officer Anca Selariu said she had been asked many times why there is a fixation on Mars.

“Why go to Mars? Because it’s possible,” she said. "Because space can unite and bring out the best in us. Because it’s one defining step that ‘Earthlings’ will take to light the way into the next centuries.”

By BRIAN P. D. HANNON Associated PressHOUSTON (AP)—The crew of a NASA mission to Mars emerged from their craft after a yearlong voyage that never left Earth.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">CHAPEA&#39;s 4-person crew just exited their home after 378 days. ✅ They simulated a Mars mission to help assess health and performance in relation to Mars-realistic resource limitations in isolation and confinement. The door is officially open and the mission is complete. Congrats… <a href="https://t.co/AbfaMrzw2n">pic.twitter.com/AbfaMrzw2n</a>&mdash; NASA&#39;s Johnson Space Center (@NASA_Johnson) <a href="https://twitter.com/NASA_Johnson/status/1809709743147217251?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 6, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The four volunteer crew members spent more than 12 months inside NASA's first simulated Mars environment at Johnson Space Center in Houston, coming out of the artificial alien enviroment Saturday around 5 p.m.Kelly Haston, Anca Selariu, Ross Brockwell and Nathan Jones entered the 3D-printed habitat on June 25, 2023, as the maiden crew of the space agency's&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/chapea/">Crew Health and Performance Exploration Analog</a>&nbsp;project.Haston, the mission commander, began with a simple, “Hello.”“It’s actually just so wonderful to be able to say ‘hello’ to you all,” she said.Jones, a physician and the mission medical officer, said their 378 days in confinement “went by quickly.”<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/7/1720352644768.png" alt="The first CHAPEA mission crew members who have been living and working inside NASA’s first simulated yearlong Mars habitat mission pose for a photograph taken on June 25, 2024. (Credits: NASA)" />
 <figcaption>The first CHAPEA mission crew members who have been living and working inside NASA’s first simulated yearlong Mars habitat mission pose for a photograph taken on June 25, 2024. (Credits: NASA)</figcaption>
 </figure>The quartet lived and worked inside the space of 17,000 square feet to simulate a mission to the red planet, the fourth from the sun and a frequent focus of discussion among scientists and sci-fi fans alike concerning a possible voyage taking humans beyond our moon.The first CHAPEA crew focused on establishing possible conditions for future Mars operations through simulated spacewalks, dubbed “Marswalks,” as well as growing and harvesting vegetables to supplement their provisions and maintaining the habitat and their equipment.They also worked through challenges a real Mars crew would be expected to experience including limited resources, isolation and delays in communication of up to 22 minutes with their home planet on the other side of the habitat's walls, NASA said.Two additional CHAPEA missions are planned and crews will continue conducting simulated spacewalks and gathering data on factors related to physical and behavioral health and performance, NASA said.Steve Koerner, deputy director of Johnson Space Center, said most of the first crew's experimentation focused on nutrition and how that affected their performance. The work was “crucial science as we prepare to send people on to the red planet,” he said.“They've been separated from their families, placed on a carefully prescribed meal plan and undergone a lot of observation,” Koerner said.“Mars is our goal,” he said, calling the project an important step in America's intent to be a leader in the global space exploration effort.Emerging after a knock on the habitat's door by Kjell Lindgren, an astronaut and the deputy director of flight operations, the four volunteers spoke of the gratitude they had for each other and those who waited patiently outside, as well as lessons learned about a prospective manned mission to Mars and life on Earth.Brockwell, the crew's flight engineer, said the mission showed him the importance of living sustainably for the benefit of everyone on Earth.“I’m very grateful to have had this incredible opportunity to live for a year within the spirit of planetary adventure towards an exciting future, and I’m grateful for the chance to live the idea that we must utilise resources no faster than they can be replenished and produce waste no faster than they can be processed back into resources," Brockwell said.“We cannot live, dream, create or explore on any significant timeframe if we don’t live these principles, but if we do, we can achieve and sustain amazing and inspiring things like exploring other worlds," he said.Science officer Anca Selariu said she had been asked many times why there is a fixation on Mars.“Why go to Mars? Because it’s possible,” she said. "Because space can unite and bring out the best in us. Because it’s one defining step that ‘Earthlings’ will take to light the way into the next centuries.”

🎥 Crew of NASA's earthbound Mars habitat emerge after a year

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/tim-carpenter/">TIM CARPENTER</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>

TOPEKA — Abortion clinic regulations embraced years ago by the Kansas Legislature and Gov. Sam Brownback were declared unconstitutional Friday by the Kansas Supreme Court in an opinion confirming the majority’s belief the state Bill of Rights guaranteed the right to end a pregnancy.

The Supreme Court’s majority used the regulation case to reinforce its 2019 decision declaring women had a fundamental right to bodily autonomy and abortion services under Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court issued a separate opinion on Friday that struck down the ban on a specific abortion procedure.

The Supreme Court’s majority agreed with a Shawnee County District Court judge’s decision in the regulation case that the Kansas attorney general’s office failed to demonstrate the benefit to maternal health or the health profession of abortion clinic licensure regulations that exceeded mandates applied to other medical facilities. The controversial statute waded into all aspects of abortion facilities to include staffing, procedures, equipment and the physical environment.

Justice Melissa Standridge, author of the 5-1 majority opinion, said the attorney general’s office didn’t carry the burden of showing the regulatory framework adopted in 2011 and 2015 advanced a compelling state interest defined as extremely weighty, possibly urgent, and rare.

“Our holding is supported by uncontroverted evidence in the record that affirmatively contradicts — for many provisions—the state’s claim that those provisions further the state’s identified compelling interests,” wrote Standridge, an appointee of Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly. “Without this showing, the challenged laws do not survive strict scrutiny and are constitutionally infirm.”

Standridge’s opinion withdrawing Brownback-era abortion regulations, which featured separate concurrences by Justices Evelyn Wilson, Eric Rose and Dan Biles, affirmed the lower court’s order in favor of two abortion doctors who filed the lawsuit. Of significance, no part of the abortion regulation law survived the challenge despite insertion of a severability clause, which hypothetically could preserve constitutional elements of an otherwise flawed law.

Justice K.J. Wall recused himself, but Justice Caleb Stegall’s dissent repeated an assertion “unrestricted access to abortion” in Kansas was the judicially preferred policy of the Supreme Court. As such, he wrote, “judicial coherence and consistency” would be sacrificed to policy. In the dissent, he scorned legal arguments of several peers.

“The betrayal of this court’s promise of neutral, uniform and rational constitutional adjudication is as far-reaching as it is audacious,” Stegall wrote. “Its damaging impact on this institution’s legitimacy will be felt for years to come.”

Stegall theorized that establishing a fundamental right to personal autonomy in relation to abortion would jeopardize regulation of food supplies, restaurants, drug use, tattoos and piercings, car seat belts, barber services, student vaccinations, assisted suicide and public nudity.

“What about the right to cut and style one’s hair?” Stegall said. “Surely, the government does not have a compelling interest in who trims my beard?”

Standridge used her majority opinion to denounce Stegall’s “false alarm” that standards of constitutional infringement in abortion rights cases would invite lawsuits associated with ideas of personal autonomy. The standard was adopted five years ago and predictions of countless regulation challenges had yet to materialize, she said.

“The dissent trivializes and attempts to minimize the fundamental nature of a woman’s decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy by comparing it to a man’s decision to grow or trim a beard,” Standridge wrote. “This facetious comparison is both inappropriate and denigrating to women faced with decisions between childbirth and abortion.”

In 2011, Brownback signed the GOP-inspired Senate Bill 36 to substantially expand licensing requirements for abortion clinics and establish severe penalties for criminal violators. In Topeka, a district court judge granted a temporary injunction to block implementation. In 2015, the Legislature and Brownback altered abortion law in a bid to convince the district court to dissolve the injunction.

The Supreme Court, meanwhile, issued the decision in 2019 that said access to abortion was an inalienable natural right. It was linked to personal autonomy and encompassed the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. Based on Supreme Court guidance, the district court struck down the state abortion clinic regulations as unconstitutional. The judge granted summary judgment to plaintiff abortion providers Traci Lynn Nauser and Herbert Hodes.

Amid the legal battle over clinic regulation, Kansas voters in August 2022 defeated a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would have nullified the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitutional right to abortion.

Danielle Underwood, a spokeswoman for the anti-abortion lobbying organization Kansans For Life, said the Supreme Court made abortion clinics less safe for patients.

“Extremely liberal judges of the Kansas Supreme Court have now overturned basic health and safety standards for abortion facilities,” Underwood said. “It hurts to say, ‘We told you so,’ to the many Kansans who were misled by the abortion industry’s assurances that it would still be ‘heavily regulated’ in our state.”

This abortion regulation suit involved a collection of restrictions that increased the cost of services and delayed a patient’s ability to receive care. One section of the law set recovery-related restrictions so patients had to stay twice as long as medically necessary and delayed a patient’s ability to receive an abortion because fewer cases could be scheduled in one day.

Health professionals had to monitor patients’ vital signs throughout the abortion procedures, even when no anesthesia was used. Regulations required a nurse station with visual observation of each patient in recovery areas.

Another regulation said a physician performing a pelvic exam must be accompanied by a second person, even if the physician performing the exam was a female.&nbsp; The statute mandated abortion facilities give the Kansas Department of Health and Environment access to medical records, including patient-identifying information.

“They create an additional scheme just for abortion care,” said Caroline Sacerdote, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights that represented the plaintiffs.

In written briefs and oral arguments, the state’s lawyers said there was no constitutional infringement because the law wasn’t an unqualified ban on abortion.

“These regulations, while perhaps imposing some inconvenience, ultimately do not impair a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion,” said Anthony Powell, who serves as solicitor general under Attorney General Kris Kobach.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/7/1720312969095.png" alt="Kansas Supreme Court Justice Melissa Standridge, center, wrote the majority opinion declaring a series of abortion clinic regulations signed into law by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback violated the Kansas Constitution's Bill of Rights. Standridge, appointed by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly, was part of a 5-1 majority that included three separate concurrences and one dissent. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption>Kansas Supreme Court Justice Melissa Standridge, center, wrote the majority opinion declaring a series of abortion clinic regulations signed into law by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback violated the Kansas Constitution's Bill of Rights. Standridge, appointed by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly, was part of a 5-1 majority that included three separate concurrences and one dissent. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/tim-carpenter/">TIM CARPENTER</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>TOPEKA — Abortion clinic regulations embraced years ago by the Kansas Legislature and Gov. Sam Brownback were declared unconstitutional Friday by the Kansas Supreme Court in an opinion confirming the majority’s belief the state Bill of Rights guaranteed the right to end a pregnancy.The Supreme Court’s majority used the regulation case to reinforce its 2019 decision declaring women had a fundamental right to bodily autonomy and abortion services under Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court issued a separate opinion on Friday that struck down the ban on a specific abortion procedure.The Supreme Court’s majority agreed with a Shawnee County District Court judge’s decision in the regulation case that the Kansas attorney general’s office failed to demonstrate the benefit to maternal health or the health profession of abortion clinic licensure regulations that exceeded mandates applied to other medical facilities. The controversial statute waded into all aspects of abortion facilities to include staffing, procedures, equipment and the physical environment.Justice Melissa Standridge, author of the 5-1 majority opinion, said the attorney general’s office didn’t carry the burden of showing the regulatory framework adopted in 2011 and 2015 advanced a compelling state interest defined as extremely weighty, possibly urgent, and rare.“Our holding is supported by uncontroverted evidence in the record that affirmatively contradicts — for many provisions—the state’s claim that those provisions further the state’s identified compelling interests,” wrote Standridge, an appointee of Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly. “Without this showing, the challenged laws do not survive strict scrutiny and are constitutionally infirm.”<h2>Haircuts, nudity?</h2>Standridge’s opinion withdrawing Brownback-era abortion regulations, which featured separate concurrences by Justices Evelyn Wilson, Eric Rose and Dan Biles, affirmed the lower court’s order in favor of two abortion doctors who filed the lawsuit. Of significance, no part of the abortion regulation law survived the challenge despite insertion of a severability clause, which hypothetically could preserve constitutional elements of an otherwise flawed law.Justice K.J. Wall recused himself, but Justice Caleb Stegall’s dissent repeated an assertion “unrestricted access to abortion” in Kansas was the judicially preferred policy of the Supreme Court. As such, he wrote, “judicial coherence and consistency” would be sacrificed to policy. In the dissent, he scorned legal arguments of several peers.“The betrayal of this court’s promise of neutral, uniform and rational constitutional adjudication is as far-reaching as it is audacious,” Stegall wrote. “Its damaging impact on this institution’s legitimacy will be felt for years to come.”Stegall theorized that establishing a fundamental right to personal autonomy in relation to abortion would jeopardize regulation of food supplies, restaurants, drug use, tattoos and piercings, car seat belts, barber services, student vaccinations, assisted suicide and public nudity.“What about the right to cut and style one’s hair?” Stegall said. “Surely, the government does not have a compelling interest in who trims my beard?”Standridge used her majority opinion to denounce Stegall’s “false alarm” that standards of constitutional infringement in abortion rights cases would invite lawsuits associated with ideas of personal autonomy. The standard was adopted five years ago and predictions of countless regulation challenges had yet to materialize, she said.“The dissent trivializes and attempts to minimize the fundamental nature of a woman’s decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy by comparing it to a man’s decision to grow or trim a beard,” Standridge wrote. “This facetious comparison is both inappropriate and denigrating to women faced with decisions between childbirth and abortion.”<h2>Abortion history</h2>In 2011, Brownback signed the GOP-inspired Senate Bill 36 to substantially expand licensing requirements for abortion clinics and establish severe penalties for criminal violators. In Topeka, a district court judge granted a temporary injunction to block implementation. In 2015, the Legislature and Brownback altered abortion law in a bid to convince the district court to dissolve the injunction.The Supreme Court, meanwhile, issued the decision in 2019 that said access to abortion was an inalienable natural right. It was linked to personal autonomy and encompassed the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. Based on Supreme Court guidance, the district court struck down the state abortion clinic regulations as unconstitutional. The judge granted summary judgment to plaintiff abortion providers Traci Lynn Nauser and Herbert Hodes.Amid the legal battle over clinic regulation, Kansas voters in August 2022 defeated a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would have nullified the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitutional right to abortion.Danielle Underwood, a spokeswoman for the anti-abortion lobbying organization Kansans For Life, said the Supreme Court made abortion clinics less safe for patients.“Extremely liberal judges of the Kansas Supreme Court have now overturned basic health and safety standards for abortion facilities,” Underwood said. “It hurts to say, ‘We told you so,’ to the many Kansans who were misled by the abortion industry’s assurances that it would still be ‘heavily regulated’ in our state.”<h2>The regulations</h2>This abortion regulation suit involved a collection of restrictions that increased the cost of services and delayed a patient’s ability to receive care. One section of the law set recovery-related restrictions so patients had to stay twice as long as medically necessary and delayed a patient’s ability to receive an abortion because fewer cases could be scheduled in one day.Health professionals had to monitor patients’ vital signs throughout the abortion procedures, even when no anesthesia was used. Regulations required a nurse station with visual observation of each patient in recovery areas.Another regulation said a physician performing a pelvic exam must be accompanied by a second person, even if the physician performing the exam was a female.&nbsp; The statute mandated abortion facilities give the Kansas Department of Health and Environment access to medical records, including patient-identifying information.“They create an additional scheme just for abortion care,” said Caroline Sacerdote, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights that represented the plaintiffs.In written briefs and oral arguments, the state’s lawyers said there was no constitutional infringement because the law wasn’t an unqualified ban on abortion.“These regulations, while perhaps imposing some inconvenience, ultimately do not impair a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion,” said Anthony Powell, who serves as solicitor general under Attorney General Kris Kobach.

Kansas abortion clinic regulations declared unconstitutional by state Supreme Court

KANSAS CITY —A motorcyclist was critically injured in an accident just after 3p.m. Saturday in Kansas City.

According to KCPD Captain Jake Becchina, a&nbsp;Kawasaki motorcycle was northbound on U.S. 169 Highway. The motorcycle was traveling too fast to maintain control on the curve just prior to the US 9 Highway exit.

 The roadway is under construction and only one lane, the right, #2 lane is available for travel with the #1 lane closed with cones. The driver was unable to make the curve and the motorcycle straight, striking the concrete jersey barrier. 

After striking the barrier, the Kawasaki's momentum kept the motorcycle going north, bouncing off the concrete jersey barrier. During one of the contacts with the jersey barrier, the driver was ejected off the motorcycle.

 After he was ejected off the motorcycle, the driver fell between the north and south bound lanes, landing 35 feet below on the railroad grounds, but not on tracks. 

A Union Pacific Train was passing the area and saw the driver fall, they stopped their train and called 9-1-1. The driver was transported to an area hospital with critical injuries.&nbsp; Police did not release the name of the injured motorcyclist.

KANSAS CITY —A motorcyclist was critically injured in an accident just after 3p.m. Saturday in Kansas City.According to KCPD Captain Jake Becchina, a&nbsp;Kawasaki motorcycle was northbound on U.S. 169 Highway. The motorcycle was traveling too fast to maintain control on the curve just prior to the US 9 Highway exit. The roadway is under construction and only one lane, the right, #2 lane is available for travel with the #1 lane closed with cones. The driver was unable to make the curve and the motorcycle straight, striking the concrete jersey barrier. After striking the barrier, the Kawasaki's momentum kept the motorcycle going north, bouncing off the concrete jersey barrier. During one of the contacts with the jersey barrier, the driver was ejected off the motorcycle. After he was ejected off the motorcycle, the driver fell between the north and south bound lanes, landing 35 feet below on the railroad grounds, but not on tracks. A Union Pacific Train was passing the area and saw the driver fall, they stopped their train and called 9-1-1. The driver was transported to an area hospital with critical injuries.&nbsp; Police did not release the name of the injured motorcyclist.

Motorcyclist crashed in construction zone, fell 35 feet below highway

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. will remove all its forces and equipment from a small base in Niger this weekend and fewer than 500 remaining troops will leave a critical drone base in the West African country in August, ahead of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-niger-military-base-withdrawal-sahel-russia-92af307c383c0d23e89d6e6f93ddd7da">a Sept. 15 deadline</a>&nbsp;set in an agreement with the new ruling junta, the American commander there said Friday.

Air Force Maj. Gen. Kenneth Ekman said in an interview that a number of small teams of 10-20 U.S. troops, including special operations forces, have moved to other countries in West Africa. But the bulk of the forces will go to Europe, at least initially.

Niger's ouster of American troops&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/niger-tensions-presidential-guard-96f8f63b838af5467d4c95ba7b998b32">following a coup last year</a>&nbsp;has broad ramifications for the U.S. because it is forcing troops to abandon the critical drone base that was used for counterterrorism missions in the Sahel, a vast region south of the Sahara desert where groups linked to al-Qaida and the Islamic State group operate.

Ekman and other&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-africa-niger-chad-defense-brown-05cb62aff7faa0318f2e39290f708666">U.S. military leaders have said</a>&nbsp;other West African nations want to work with the U.S. and may be open to an expanded American presence. He did not detail the locations, but other U.S. officials have pointed to the Ivory Coast and Ghana as examples.

Ekman, who serves as the director for strategy at U.S. Africa Command, is leading&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-africa-niger-chad-defense-brown-05cb62aff7faa0318f2e39290f708666">the U.S. military withdrawal</a>&nbsp;from the small base at the airport in Niger's capital of Niamey and from the larger counterterrorism base in the city of Agadez. He said there will be a ceremony Sunday marking the completed pullout from the airport base, then the final 100 troops and the last C-17 transport aircraft will depart.

Under the junta agreement, two-thirds of U.S. troops and equipment must be out of the country by July 26, Ekman said. That deadline, which forced the Pentagon to move quickly, is a key reason why U.S. Africa Command will complete its withdrawal of all 1,000 troops from Niger early.

But it also leaves a counterterrorism gap that U.S. officials are struggling to fill as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/africa-niger-alqaida-islamic-state-26d23d581507515e96ff15bfdc96a60b">security threats from extremist groups in the Sahel grow</a>.

One of those groups, Jama’a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin, known as JNIM, is active in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger and is looking to expand into Benin and Togo. Those expansion locations could be used initially as hubs to rest, recuperate, get financing and gather weapons, according to U.S. officials, but the group also has increased attacks there.

“Niger was immensely helpful for us as a location because it was in the Sahel and it was adjacent to those areas where the threat is most concentrated,” Ekman said. Now, he said, the challenge is battling the insurgency while having to get access from outside Niger, which makes it more difficult.

He said other coastal West African nations are concerned about the Sahel-based threats and want to talk about how they can partner with American forces. Ekman added that the small teams of U.S. troops moving to other West African nations are not combat forces but advisers, as well as special operations, personnel recovery and intelligence and surveillance forces.

Talks with other nations continue, and Ekman said some may be interested but not ready to allow in more U.S. troops. One example, he said, is Togo, which is southwest of Niger on the coast.

“In Togo, what I find is a partner that is friendly to the U.S. but that right now is unresolved on the degree they want the presence of any additional U.S. military personnel there,” he said. “My assessment was, ‘Not yet.'”

Speaking to reporters from The Associated Press and Reuters from the U.S. embassy in Niamey, Ekman said that while portable buildings and vehicles that are no longer useful will be left behind when U.S. troops leave Niger, a lot of larger equipment will be pulled out. For example, he said 18 4,000-pound (1,800-kilograms) generators worth more than $1 million each will be taken out of Agadez.

Unlike the withdrawal from Afghanistan, he said the U.S. is not destroying equipment or facilities as it leaves.

“Our goal in the execution is, leave things in as good a state as possible,” he said. “If we went out and left it a wreck or we went out spitefully, or if we destroyed things as we went, we’d be foreclosing options” for future security relations.

Niger’s ruling junta ordered U.S. forces out of the country in the wake of last July’s ouster of the country’s democratically elected president by mutinous soldiers.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/france-niger-coup-military-withdrawal-bfa3afe3fdfa034dabe3dce265540411">French forces had also been asked to leave</a>&nbsp;as the junta turned to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wagner-russia-coup-niger-military-force-e0e1108b58a9e955af465a3efe6605c0">the Russian mercenary group Wagner</a>&nbsp;for security assistance.

Washington officially designated the military takeover as a coup in October, triggering U.S. laws restricting the military support and aid.

Ekman said he has been told that there are fewer than 100 Russian troops at the base near in Niamey and that once they are done training Niger troops, they will also leave the country.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/7/1720210727266.png" alt="Maj. Gen. Kenneth P. Ekman speaks in front of a "Welcome to Niamey" sign depicting U.S. military vehicles at Air Base 101 in Niger, May 30, 2024. As the Director of Strategy, Engagement and Programs for U.S. Africa Command, Ekman is coordinating the smooth transition of forces and gear out of Niger. This operation reflects the commitment to a safe, orderly, and responsible transition. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Christopher Dyer)" />
 <figcaption>Maj. Gen. Kenneth P. Ekman speaks in front of a "Welcome to Niamey" sign depicting U.S. military vehicles at Air Base 101 in Niger, May 30, 2024. As the Director of Strategy, Engagement and Programs for U.S. Africa Command, Ekman is coordinating the smooth transition of forces and gear out of Niger. This operation reflects the commitment to a safe, orderly, and responsible transition. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Christopher Dyer)</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. will remove all its forces and equipment from a small base in Niger this weekend and fewer than 500 remaining troops will leave a critical drone base in the West African country in August, ahead of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-niger-military-base-withdrawal-sahel-russia-92af307c383c0d23e89d6e6f93ddd7da">a Sept. 15 deadline</a>&nbsp;set in an agreement with the new ruling junta, the American commander there said Friday.Air Force Maj. Gen. Kenneth Ekman said in an interview that a number of small teams of 10-20 U.S. troops, including special operations forces, have moved to other countries in West Africa. But the bulk of the forces will go to Europe, at least initially.Niger's ouster of American troops&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/niger-tensions-presidential-guard-96f8f63b838af5467d4c95ba7b998b32">following a coup last year</a>&nbsp;has broad ramifications for the U.S. because it is forcing troops to abandon the critical drone base that was used for counterterrorism missions in the Sahel, a vast region south of the Sahara desert where groups linked to al-Qaida and the Islamic State group operate.Ekman and other&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-africa-niger-chad-defense-brown-05cb62aff7faa0318f2e39290f708666">U.S. military leaders have said</a>&nbsp;other West African nations want to work with the U.S. and may be open to an expanded American presence. He did not detail the locations, but other U.S. officials have pointed to the Ivory Coast and Ghana as examples.Ekman, who serves as the director for strategy at U.S. Africa Command, is leading&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-africa-niger-chad-defense-brown-05cb62aff7faa0318f2e39290f708666">the U.S. military withdrawal</a>&nbsp;from the small base at the airport in Niger's capital of Niamey and from the larger counterterrorism base in the city of Agadez. He said there will be a ceremony Sunday marking the completed pullout from the airport base, then the final 100 troops and the last C-17 transport aircraft will depart.Under the junta agreement, two-thirds of U.S. troops and equipment must be out of the country by July 26, Ekman said. That deadline, which forced the Pentagon to move quickly, is a key reason why U.S. Africa Command will complete its withdrawal of all 1,000 troops from Niger early.But it also leaves a counterterrorism gap that U.S. officials are struggling to fill as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/africa-niger-alqaida-islamic-state-26d23d581507515e96ff15bfdc96a60b">security threats from extremist groups in the Sahel grow</a>.One of those groups, Jama’a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin, known as JNIM, is active in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger and is looking to expand into Benin and Togo. Those expansion locations could be used initially as hubs to rest, recuperate, get financing and gather weapons, according to U.S. officials, but the group also has increased attacks there.“Niger was immensely helpful for us as a location because it was in the Sahel and it was adjacent to those areas where the threat is most concentrated,” Ekman said. Now, he said, the challenge is battling the insurgency while having to get access from outside Niger, which makes it more difficult.He said other coastal West African nations are concerned about the Sahel-based threats and want to talk about how they can partner with American forces. Ekman added that the small teams of U.S. troops moving to other West African nations are not combat forces but advisers, as well as special operations, personnel recovery and intelligence and surveillance forces.Talks with other nations continue, and Ekman said some may be interested but not ready to allow in more U.S. troops. One example, he said, is Togo, which is southwest of Niger on the coast.“In Togo, what I find is a partner that is friendly to the U.S. but that right now is unresolved on the degree they want the presence of any additional U.S. military personnel there,” he said. “My assessment was, ‘Not yet.'”Speaking to reporters from The Associated Press and Reuters from the U.S. embassy in Niamey, Ekman said that while portable buildings and vehicles that are no longer useful will be left behind when U.S. troops leave Niger, a lot of larger equipment will be pulled out. For example, he said 18 4,000-pound (1,800-kilograms) generators worth more than $1 million each will be taken out of Agadez.Unlike the withdrawal from Afghanistan, he said the U.S. is not destroying equipment or facilities as it leaves.“Our goal in the execution is, leave things in as good a state as possible,” he said. “If we went out and left it a wreck or we went out spitefully, or if we destroyed things as we went, we’d be foreclosing options” for future security relations.Niger’s ruling junta ordered U.S. forces out of the country in the wake of last July’s ouster of the country’s democratically elected president by mutinous soldiers.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/france-niger-coup-military-withdrawal-bfa3afe3fdfa034dabe3dce265540411">French forces had also been asked to leave</a>&nbsp;as the junta turned to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wagner-russia-coup-niger-military-force-e0e1108b58a9e955af465a3efe6605c0">the Russian mercenary group Wagner</a>&nbsp;for security assistance.Washington officially designated the military takeover as a coup in October, triggering U.S. laws restricting the military support and aid.Ekman said he has been told that there are fewer than 100 Russian troops at the base near in Niamey and that once they are done training Niger troops, they will also leave the country.

US removing troops from bases in West African nation after coup

Join Cosmosphere on Wednesday, July 10, at 6:00 p.m. in the Grand Lobby as they welcome Vickie Kloeris, a space chef, food scientist, speaker, and author.

Kloeris will give a presentation on her career at NASA and discuss her book, Space Bites: Reflections of a NASA Food Scientist. She will have a book signing immediately following her presentation.

She recently retired from NASA, where she worked in space food systems for 34 years. For 29 years, she was the NASA manager of the Shuttle and then the International Space Station food systems.

This presentation is free to the public. Kloeris’s book, Space Bites, will be available in the Cosmosphere’s Gift Store. It's available online now at <a href="http://shop.cosmo.org">shop.cosmo.org</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1717606401739.jpeg" alt="Vickie Kloeris-Photo Courtesy Cosmosphere" />
 <figcaption>Vickie Kloeris-Photo Courtesy Cosmosphere</figcaption>
 </figure>Cosmosphere Join Cosmosphere on Wednesday, July 10, at 6:00 p.m. in the Grand Lobby as they welcome Vickie Kloeris, a space chef, food scientist, speaker, and author.Kloeris will give a presentation on her career at NASA and discuss her book, Space Bites: Reflections of a NASA Food Scientist. She will have a book signing immediately following her presentation.She recently retired from NASA, where she worked in space food systems for 34 years. For 29 years, she was the NASA manager of the Shuttle and then the International Space Station food systems.This presentation is free to the public. Kloeris’s book, Space Bites, will be available in the Cosmosphere’s Gift Store. It's available online now at <a href="http://shop.cosmo.org">shop.cosmo.org</a>.

Former NASA Food Scientist's visit to Cosmosphere Wednesday

KANSAS CITY– Two women were indicted by a federal grand jury in June for sexually abusing two children to produce child pornography, according to the United State's Attorney.

Mallory Nicole Bunch, 40, and Jessica Nicole Pickett, 34, both of Strafford, Missouri were charged in a five-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Springfield. The indictment replaces a federal criminal complaint that was filed against Pickett on June 11, 2024.

The indictment alleges that Mallory Bunch and Pickett participated in a conspiracy with Thomas Bunch (now deceased, formerly Mallory Bunch’s husband with whom they were involved in a polyamorous relationship) to sexually abuse two minor victims to produce child pornography from Sept. 2, 2016, to May 23, 2024.

According to an affidavit filed in support of the original criminal complaint, Mallory Bunch used her cell phone to record the sexual abuse of a child, identified as Minor Victim 1, at the request of Thomas Bunch. She allegedly sent videos of the sexual abuse to Thomas Bunch through text messages. In addition to the conspiracy, today’s indictment charges Mallory Bunch with one count of using Minor Victim 1 to produce child pornography and one count of distributing child pornography.

Pickett is also charged with one count of using a child victim, identified as Minor Victim 2, to produce child pornography and one count of transferring obscene matter to Minor Victim 1. According to the affidavit, Pickett shared with Minor Victim 1 an iCloud link that contained 376 images and two videos of the sexual activity of Mallory and Thomas Bunch and Pickett.

The charges contained in this indictment are simply accusations, and not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting the charges must be presented to a federal trial jury, whose duty is to determine guilt or innocence.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie L. Wan. It was investigated by the Greene County, Mo., Sheriff’s Department, Homeland Security Investigations, the Southwest Missouri Cyber Crimes Task Force, and the Webster County, Mo., Sheriff’s Department.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/7/1720300356065.png" alt="Pickett photo Greene Co." />
 <figcaption>Pickett photo Greene Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY– Two women were indicted by a federal grand jury in June for sexually abusing two children to produce child pornography, according to the United State's Attorney.Mallory Nicole Bunch, 40, and Jessica Nicole Pickett, 34, both of Strafford, Missouri were charged in a five-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Springfield. The indictment replaces a federal criminal complaint that was filed against Pickett on June 11, 2024.The indictment alleges that Mallory Bunch and Pickett participated in a conspiracy with Thomas Bunch (now deceased, formerly Mallory Bunch’s husband with whom they were involved in a polyamorous relationship) to sexually abuse two minor victims to produce child pornography from Sept. 2, 2016, to May 23, 2024.According to an affidavit filed in support of the original criminal complaint, Mallory Bunch used her cell phone to record the sexual abuse of a child, identified as Minor Victim 1, at the request of Thomas Bunch. She allegedly sent videos of the sexual abuse to Thomas Bunch through text messages. In addition to the conspiracy, today’s indictment charges Mallory Bunch with one count of using Minor Victim 1 to produce child pornography and one count of distributing child pornography.Pickett is also charged with one count of using a child victim, identified as Minor Victim 2, to produce child pornography and one count of transferring obscene matter to Minor Victim 1. According to the affidavit, Pickett shared with Minor Victim 1 an iCloud link that contained 376 images and two videos of the sexual activity of Mallory and Thomas Bunch and Pickett.The charges contained in this indictment are simply accusations, and not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting the charges must be presented to a federal trial jury, whose duty is to determine guilt or innocence.This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie L. Wan. It was investigated by the Greene County, Mo., Sheriff’s Department, Homeland Security Investigations, the Southwest Missouri Cyber Crimes Task Force, and the Webster County, Mo., Sheriff’s Department.

2 women accused of using children to produce child pornography

SEDGWICK COUNTY —A Kansas man is going to prison for a deadly crash that killed a passenger in his vehicle in 2023.

On July 1, 24-year-old Harry Rediker was sentenced to&nbsp;22 years in prison for the death of&nbsp;38-year-old Lindsey Garmon of Wellington as he fled a traffic stop and crashed.

Just before 5:30 a.m. January 28, 2023, deputies attempted to stop a Hyundia Elantra for alleged traffic infractions on Kellogg Drive, according to Sheriff's Lt. Nathan Gibbs. The driver of the vehicle&nbsp;<a href="https://ssc.sedgwickcounty.org/sheriffinmates/SheriffInmateDetail.aspx?nameId=20054606">Harry Rediker 22,</a>&nbsp;Wichita,&nbsp; failed to stop and fled from deputies.

The Preliminary Investigation shows Rediker’s vehicle left the roadway at Hoover and Taft and struck a utility pole ending the pursuit.

EMS transported Rediker to a local hospital for treatment of minor injuries. EMS also transported the passenger in the vehicle identified as 38-year-old Lindsey Garmon of Wellington to a local hospital with serious injuries and she later died.

<a href="https://ssc.sedgwickcounty.org/sheriffinmates/SheriffInmateDetail.aspx?nameId=20054606">Rediker was booked into the&nbsp;</a>Sedgwick County Jail on requested charges of 1st Degree Murder in commission of a felony, Interference with law enforcement officer: obstruct felony warrant service, flee and elude, and state parole violation.

Rediker has previous convictions for theft, criminal possession of a weapon and flee or attempt to elude law enforcement had had been reported as absconder on Jan. 9, according to the Kansas Department of Corrections. The agency had issued a warrant for his arrest the day of the crash.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/1/1675092662469.png" alt="Rediker-photo Sedgwick Co." />
 <figcaption>Rediker-photo Sedgwick Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>SEDGWICK COUNTY —A Kansas man is going to prison for a deadly crash that killed a passenger in his vehicle in 2023.On July 1, 24-year-old Harry Rediker was sentenced to&nbsp;22 years in prison for the death of&nbsp;38-year-old Lindsey Garmon of Wellington as he fled a traffic stop and crashed.Just before 5:30 a.m. January 28, 2023, deputies attempted to stop a Hyundia Elantra for alleged traffic infractions on Kellogg Drive, according to Sheriff's Lt. Nathan Gibbs. The driver of the vehicle&nbsp;<a href="https://ssc.sedgwickcounty.org/sheriffinmates/SheriffInmateDetail.aspx?nameId=20054606">Harry Rediker 22,</a>&nbsp;Wichita,&nbsp; failed to stop and fled from deputies.The Preliminary Investigation shows Rediker’s vehicle left the roadway at Hoover and Taft and struck a utility pole ending the pursuit.EMS transported Rediker to a local hospital for treatment of minor injuries. EMS also transported the passenger in the vehicle identified as 38-year-old Lindsey Garmon of Wellington to a local hospital with serious injuries and she later died.<a href="https://ssc.sedgwickcounty.org/sheriffinmates/SheriffInmateDetail.aspx?nameId=20054606">Rediker was booked into the&nbsp;</a>Sedgwick County Jail on requested charges of 1st Degree Murder in commission of a felony, Interference with law enforcement officer: obstruct felony warrant service, flee and elude, and state parole violation.Rediker has previous convictions for theft, criminal possession of a weapon and flee or attempt to elude law enforcement had had been reported as absconder on Jan. 9, according to the Kansas Department of Corrections. The agency had issued a warrant for his arrest the day of the crash.