LINCOLN, Neb&nbsp; — Colonel Bryan Waugh took the oath of office today as the 19th&nbsp;Superintendent in the history of the Nebraska State Patrol.

“I am honored, committed, and prepared for this opportunity,” said Colonel Waugh. “The Nebraska State Patrol is a storied organization with professional men and women who are first class, dedicated, committed, and driven to provide the highest level of public safety and professional services for the entire state of Nebraska.”

Waugh comes to NSP from the Kearney Police Department, where he has served as Chief of Police since 2019. He brings 32 years of law enforcement experience to NSP, including his service with the Kearney Police Department, the La Vista Police Department, and in the United States Air Force. He is also a graduate of the prestigious FBI National Academy.

Waugh was appointed to serve as Nebraska’s Superintendent of Law Enforcement and Public Safety by Governor Jim Pillen and unanimously confirmed by the Nebraska Legislature. Colonel Waugh’s badge was pinned on by his wife, Julie. The Oath of Office was administered by the Hon. Patrick Lee, Judge of Nebraska’s 9th&nbsp;District Court.

Colonel Waugh takes over for Lt. Colonel Jeff Roby, who has served as Interim Superintendent since the retirement of Colonel John Bolduc in early May.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1748965318730.jpeg" alt="Colonel Waugh Sworn-In as Nebraska State Patrol Superintendent" />
 <figcaption>Colonel Waugh Sworn-In as Nebraska State Patrol Superintendent</figcaption>
 </figure>LINCOLN, Neb&nbsp; — Colonel Bryan Waugh took the oath of office today as the 19th&nbsp;Superintendent in the history of the Nebraska State Patrol.“I am honored, committed, and prepared for this opportunity,” said Colonel Waugh. “The Nebraska State Patrol is a storied organization with professional men and women who are first class, dedicated, committed, and driven to provide the highest level of public safety and professional services for the entire state of Nebraska.”Waugh comes to NSP from the Kearney Police Department, where he has served as Chief of Police since 2019. He brings 32 years of law enforcement experience to NSP, including his service with the Kearney Police Department, the La Vista Police Department, and in the United States Air Force. He is also a graduate of the prestigious FBI National Academy.Waugh was appointed to serve as Nebraska’s Superintendent of Law Enforcement and Public Safety by Governor Jim Pillen and unanimously confirmed by the Nebraska Legislature. Colonel Waugh’s badge was pinned on by his wife, Julie. The Oath of Office was administered by the Hon. Patrick Lee, Judge of Nebraska’s 9th&nbsp;District Court.Colonel Waugh takes over for Lt. Colonel Jeff Roby, who has served as Interim Superintendent since the retirement of Colonel John Bolduc in early May.

Colonel Waugh Sworn-In as Nebraska State Patrol Superintendent

June 2, 2025 (York, Neb.)&nbsp;&nbsp;— Troopers with the Nebraska State Patrol have arrested an Arizona man after locating over 20 pounds of suspected fentanyl pills and methamphetamine during a traffic stop on I-80.

Friday, at approximately 3:10 p.m., a trooper saw a Nissan Altima speeding while traveling eastbound on Interstate 80 near York. During the traffic stop, an NSP K9 detected the odor of a controlled substance in the vehicle.

Troopers searched the vehicle and found numerous packages of suspected fentanyl pills and methamphetamine. The total weight of the pills was approximately 19 pounds along with 5 pounds of suspected methamphetamine.

The driver, Thomas Henry, 36, of Williams, Arizona, was arrested for possession of controlled substances and possession with intent to deliver. He was lodged in York County Jail.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1748875344175.jpeg" alt="Troopers Find Thousands of Fentanyl Pills, Meth in I-80 Traffic Stop" />
 <figcaption>Troopers Find Thousands of Fentanyl Pills, Meth in I-80 Traffic Stop</figcaption>
 </figure>June 2, 2025 (York, Neb.)&nbsp;&nbsp;— Troopers with the Nebraska State Patrol have arrested an Arizona man after locating over 20 pounds of suspected fentanyl pills and methamphetamine during a traffic stop on I-80.Friday, at approximately 3:10 p.m., a trooper saw a Nissan Altima speeding while traveling eastbound on Interstate 80 near York. During the traffic stop, an NSP K9 detected the odor of a controlled substance in the vehicle.Troopers searched the vehicle and found numerous packages of suspected fentanyl pills and methamphetamine. The total weight of the pills was approximately 19 pounds along with 5 pounds of suspected methamphetamine.The driver, Thomas Henry, 36, of Williams, Arizona, was arrested for possession of controlled substances and possession with intent to deliver. He was lodged in York County Jail.

Troopers Find Thousands of Fentanyl Pills, Meth in I-80 Traffic Stop

Lincoln, Neb., May 30&nbsp;—&nbsp;Agricultural landowners and tenants in Nebraska who are involved in crop share lease agreements are invited to participate in a new survey from the Center for Agricultural Profitability at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Data from responses will be used to better understand how crop share leases are structured across the state and inform new publications.Crop share agreements allow landlords and tenants to share both the risks and rewards of crop production. But the terms of these agreements — how costs and returns are divided — can differ widely depending on region, crop type, land productivity, and local traditions.

“Many leases are still based on verbal agreements or old rules of thumb,” said Anastasia Meyer, extension agricultural economist with the Center for Agricultural Profitability. “We know practices vary, but we don’t have consistent statewide data showing how. This survey is an important step toward helping landowners and producers make better-informed decisions.”

The anonymous survey asks participants — whether landlords or tenants — about lease structures, shared expenses, and other common terms. Results will inform the development of educational materials and tools to support fair and effective lease negotiations across Nebraska.

The brief survey is open now at:&nbsp;<a href="https://unl233.acemlnb.com/lt.php?x=3DZy~GDDJFPP6HOtyt~OV.Oh2q-giQ~0k~sxkKI4KXTO5HR9_Uy.0eFu13VziNLxk_Y0X6HFKneg6m" target="_blank">https://go.unl.edu/2025cropshare</a>.

“Completing the survey takes just a few minutes,” Meyer said. “Responses will help paint a clearer picture of current leasing trends and ensure educational resources reflect what’s really happening in the field.”&nbsp;&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1748868071461.jpeg" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure>Lincoln, Neb., May 30&nbsp;—&nbsp;Agricultural landowners and tenants in Nebraska who are involved in crop share lease agreements are invited to participate in a new survey from the Center for Agricultural Profitability at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Data from responses will be used to better understand how crop share leases are structured across the state and inform new publications.Crop share agreements allow landlords and tenants to share both the risks and rewards of crop production. But the terms of these agreements — how costs and returns are divided — can differ widely depending on region, crop type, land productivity, and local traditions.“Many leases are still based on verbal agreements or old rules of thumb,” said Anastasia Meyer, extension agricultural economist with the Center for Agricultural Profitability. “We know practices vary, but we don’t have consistent statewide data showing how. This survey is an important step toward helping landowners and producers make better-informed decisions.”The anonymous survey asks participants — whether landlords or tenants — about lease structures, shared expenses, and other common terms. Results will inform the development of educational materials and tools to support fair and effective lease negotiations across Nebraska.The brief survey is open now at:&nbsp;<a href="https://unl233.acemlnb.com/lt.php?x=3DZy~GDDJFPP6HOtyt~OV.Oh2q-giQ~0k~sxkKI4KXTO5HR9_Uy.0eFu13VziNLxk_Y0X6HFKneg6m" target="_blank">https://go.unl.edu/2025cropshare</a>.“Completing the survey takes just a few minutes,” Meyer said. “Responses will help paint a clearer picture of current leasing trends and ensure educational resources reflect what’s really happening in the field.”&nbsp;&nbsp;

UNL Seeks Input from Nebraska Ag Landowners and Tenants in New Crop Share Survey

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/author/ropshal/">Robin Opsahl</a> <a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/">Iowa Capital Dispatch</a>

PARKERSBURG — At a sometimes raucous town hall meeting Friday morning, U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst faced vocal opposition to her support for spending cuts to programs such as Medicaid and SNAP.

Like many other Republican lawmakers holding events with constituents throughout the country, Ernst faced a crowd at the Aplington-Parkersburg High School who were upset with decisions made by President Donald Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress — particularly as they relate to funding for health care and food assistance programs included in the “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill that&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-republicans-push-through-massive-tax-and-spending-bill-slashing-medicaid" target="_blank">narrowly passed the U.S. House</a>&nbsp;earlier in May.

Though Ernst said the Senate would make changes to the measure and advance their own version of the legislation, she defended reductions in spending for Medicaid at the town hall, saying the changes will not impact people in need but will remove from the program “illegals that are receiving Medicaid benefits” and able-bodied adults who are not working.

“People will die,” a woman shouted at the stage as Ernst answered one of several questions about the cuts.

“People are not — well, we all are going to die, so for heaven’s sake,” Ernst said in a response that was met by further shouts and jeering from the crowd.

Ernst said she agrees with most of the provisions on Medicaid included in the House version of the budget reconciliation bill, saying that it was targeted at changes to the public health care program that “made it much easier to get onto Medicaid, but much tougher to take people off of Medicaid.” Ernst said many people on Medicaid currently are working full-time and have access to other benefits.

“What we have to do is make sure that those that are not eligible by the federal standard for Medicaid are not receiving Medicaid,” Ernst said. “What we do need to do is make sure that those that are part of a vulnerable population have access to Medicaid and receive those full benefits. So what we’re trying to do is strengthen Medicaid by directing the dollars to the people that actually meet the requirements of the program.”

In its House form, the bill includes a $625 billion reduction in federal spending for Medicaid over 10 years, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. It also includes 80-hour-per-month work requirements for people between ages 19 and 65 to continue receiving Medicaid health coverage, with several exceptions for people with disabilities and complex medical conditions, pregnant people, tribal community members and parents of dependent children.

Elizabeth Kehret, who works for Lutheran Services in Iowa, said she was troubled by the potential impact of Medicaid cuts for pregnant woman, saying that she was previously enrolled on Medicaid during her four pregnancies before the&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/04/03/postpartum-medicaid-extension-with-cut-in-eligibility-heads-to-governors-desk/">state revised eligibility for postpartum coverage</a>, changing it from families with incomes of 375% of the federal poverty line to those at 215% of the federal poverty line.

Kehret said she was concerned the federal Medicaid spending cuts would cause similar cuts for care in states across the country, meaning pregnant people, who may also have private health coverage, will struggle to pay for the medical care required both before and after their child is born.

“I heard you say earlier about people who work full time but still get Medicaid — yeah,” Kehret said. “I meet with dozens of women who have dual enrollment, where they have private insurance as well as Medicaid, and it helps cover the things that their private insurance doesn’t, or that high deductible. … Medicaid is extremely important to the smallest and most vulnerable population in Iowa.”

Ernst said there were provisions to allow continued Medicaid coverage for pregnant people in the House bill.

“Because you are part of that vulnerable population, we want to make sure that you have access to Medicaid,” Ernst said. “So you will hear examples of those like the able-bodied, 30-year-old man who is taking advantage of the program, not working. What we’re asking is that please engage in work activities, engage in volunteer activities, be enrolled in a training program, and then that makes you Medicaid eligible.”

Similar concerns were brought up about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, that provides food assistance to low-income individuals. Under the House budget plan, some costs of SNAP would be moved to the states, in addition to adding other work requirements. Ernst said the House bill is correcting “overpayments” from states on SNAP, in addition to removing “people that have not been eligible for these programs by law as it is currently written” from public assistance.

Several veterans also spoke at the event, criticizing Republicans and Elon Musk’s DOGE Service for cuts to veterans’ assistance programs and cuts to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. In response, Ernst said, “We’re not cutting veterans benefits.”

Several veterans have been outspoken about&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/we-call-it-betrayal-veterans-join-dems-dc-protest-trumps-sweeping-va-job-cuts" target="_blank">changes made by DOGE</a>&nbsp;to the VA, including the cut of roughly 2,400 VA jobs in early March.

Ernst has been a major supporter of DOGE and efforts to make government more “efficient,” saying Republicans and Musk are focused on removing areas of unnecessary spending and “streamlining” existing programs and services. Ernst highlighted the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as an entity that can be made more efficient through DOGE efforts in response to a question on federal support following natural disasters.

“Department of Government Efficiency … the E is not about elimination, it is about efficiency,” Ernst said. “So how can we do better as a federal government to respond to the people on the ground?”

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/author/ropshal/">Robin Opsahl</a> <a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/">Iowa Capital Dispatch</a>PARKERSBURG — At a sometimes raucous town hall meeting Friday morning, U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst faced vocal opposition to her support for spending cuts to programs such as Medicaid and SNAP.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">During a town hall meeting, when discussing Medicaid benefits, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) responds to someone: &quot;Well, we all are going to die.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/HDj0w27vHJ">pic.twitter.com/HDj0w27vHJ</a>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1928477381359972502?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 30, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Like many other Republican lawmakers holding events with constituents throughout the country, Ernst faced a crowd at the Aplington-Parkersburg High School who were upset with decisions made by President Donald Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress — particularly as they relate to funding for health care and food assistance programs included in the “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill that&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-republicans-push-through-massive-tax-and-spending-bill-slashing-medicaid" target="_blank">narrowly passed the U.S. House</a>&nbsp;earlier in May.Though Ernst said the Senate would make changes to the measure and advance their own version of the legislation, she defended reductions in spending for Medicaid at the town hall, saying the changes will not impact people in need but will remove from the program “illegals that are receiving Medicaid benefits” and able-bodied adults who are not working.“People will die,” a woman shouted at the stage as Ernst answered one of several questions about the cuts.“People are not — well, we all are going to die, so for heaven’s sake,” Ernst said in a response that was met by further shouts and jeering from the crowd.Ernst said she agrees with most of the provisions on Medicaid included in the House version of the budget reconciliation bill, saying that it was targeted at changes to the public health care program that “made it much easier to get onto Medicaid, but much tougher to take people off of Medicaid.” Ernst said many people on Medicaid currently are working full-time and have access to other benefits.“What we have to do is make sure that those that are not eligible by the federal standard for Medicaid are not receiving Medicaid,” Ernst said. “What we do need to do is make sure that those that are part of a vulnerable population have access to Medicaid and receive those full benefits. So what we’re trying to do is strengthen Medicaid by directing the dollars to the people that actually meet the requirements of the program.”In its House form, the bill includes a $625 billion reduction in federal spending for Medicaid over 10 years, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. It also includes 80-hour-per-month work requirements for people between ages 19 and 65 to continue receiving Medicaid health coverage, with several exceptions for people with disabilities and complex medical conditions, pregnant people, tribal community members and parents of dependent children.Elizabeth Kehret, who works for Lutheran Services in Iowa, said she was troubled by the potential impact of Medicaid cuts for pregnant woman, saying that she was previously enrolled on Medicaid during her four pregnancies before the&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/04/03/postpartum-medicaid-extension-with-cut-in-eligibility-heads-to-governors-desk/">state revised eligibility for postpartum coverage</a>, changing it from families with incomes of 375% of the federal poverty line to those at 215% of the federal poverty line.Kehret said she was concerned the federal Medicaid spending cuts would cause similar cuts for care in states across the country, meaning pregnant people, who may also have private health coverage, will struggle to pay for the medical care required both before and after their child is born.“I heard you say earlier about people who work full time but still get Medicaid — yeah,” Kehret said. “I meet with dozens of women who have dual enrollment, where they have private insurance as well as Medicaid, and it helps cover the things that their private insurance doesn’t, or that high deductible. … Medicaid is extremely important to the smallest and most vulnerable population in Iowa.”Ernst said there were provisions to allow continued Medicaid coverage for pregnant people in the House bill.“Because you are part of that vulnerable population, we want to make sure that you have access to Medicaid,” Ernst said. “So you will hear examples of those like the able-bodied, 30-year-old man who is taking advantage of the program, not working. What we’re asking is that please engage in work activities, engage in volunteer activities, be enrolled in a training program, and then that makes you Medicaid eligible.”Similar concerns were brought up about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, that provides food assistance to low-income individuals. Under the House budget plan, some costs of SNAP would be moved to the states, in addition to adding other work requirements. Ernst said the House bill is correcting “overpayments” from states on SNAP, in addition to removing “people that have not been eligible for these programs by law as it is currently written” from public assistance.Several veterans also spoke at the event, criticizing Republicans and Elon Musk’s DOGE Service for cuts to veterans’ assistance programs and cuts to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. In response, Ernst said, “We’re not cutting veterans benefits.”Several veterans have been outspoken about&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/we-call-it-betrayal-veterans-join-dems-dc-protest-trumps-sweeping-va-job-cuts" target="_blank">changes made by DOGE</a>&nbsp;to the VA, including the cut of roughly 2,400 VA jobs in early March.Ernst has been a major supporter of DOGE and efforts to make government more “efficient,” saying Republicans and Musk are focused on removing areas of unnecessary spending and “streamlining” existing programs and services. Ernst highlighted the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as an entity that can be made more efficient through DOGE efforts in response to a question on federal support following natural disasters.“Department of Government Efficiency … the E is not about elimination, it is about efficiency,” Ernst said. “So how can we do better as a federal government to respond to the people on the ground?”

‘Well, we all are going to die’: U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst defends Medicaid cuts at heated town hall

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">Ariana Figueroa</a>

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday said it will allow the Trump administration to remove deportation protections for more than 500,000 nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who were given permission to temporarily remain and work in the United States by the Biden administration.

The move by the high court — which permits the deportations while a lawsuit continues to work its way through the courts — came after a district court in Massachusetts in April blocked the Trump administration from ending the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, or CHNV, program for 532,000 people.

It’s the second decision by the Supreme Court this month stripping immigrants of some form of temporary legal protections, affecting more than 800,000 people in the country without permanent legal status who are now subject to swift deportation.

<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-lets-trump-end-protected-status-350000-venezuelan-migrants" target="_blank">On May 19, the Supreme Court allowed</a>&nbsp;the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for 350,000 Venezuelans who were granted the protection from deportation because their home country was deemed too unstable to return to due to the political regime.

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin welcomed the ruling.

“Ending the CHNV parole programs, as well as the paroles of those who exploited it, will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety, and a return to America First,” she said in a statement.

Todd Schulte, the president of the immigration advocacy group FWD.us, said in a statement that the high court’s decision “penalizes half a million people for complying with our immigration laws.”

“This decision will have devastating and immediate consequences, and is part of a broader attempt by the executive branch to justify further immigration enforcement crackdowns against families across the country,” Schulte said. “The government failed to show any harm remotely comparable to that which will come from a half million people losing their jobs and becoming subject to deportation.”&nbsp;

Friday’s case is one of several immigration-related emergency requests the Department of Justice has brought to the high court, as the Trump administration aims to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/supreme-court-permits-trump-use-wartime-law-deportations-now-and-limits" target="_blank">carry out mass deportations</a>, wind down temporary legal pathways for immigrants and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-hear-case-trumps-birthright-citizenship-order" target="_blank">redefine the constitutional right of birthright citizenship.</a>

No judicial review for parole, DOJ argues

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A1079/358354/20250508121118618_Kristi_Noem_v_Svitlana_Doe_et_al_%20application_stay.pdf" target="_blank">In the emergency filing</a>&nbsp;to the high court in Friday’s case, Solicitor General D. John Sauer&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-asks-us-supreme-court-end-humanitarian-protections-migrants-4-nations" target="_blank">argued&nbsp;</a>that the Immigration Nationality Act bars judicial review of discretionary decisions, such as what is called humanitarian parole, for the CHNV program.

He added that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem terminated the program because it does not align with the interests of the Trump administration.

Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

“The Court has plainly botched this assessment today,” Jackson wrote in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1079_p86b.pdf" target="_blank">her dissent.</a>&nbsp;“It undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.”

She argued that the Trump administration did not prove it would be harmed by the preliminary injunction.&nbsp;An appeals court previously rejected the government’s request to put the lower court’s order on hold.

“While it is apparent that the Government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize—not maximize—harm to litigating parties,” Jackson wrote.

President Joe Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://georgiarecorder.com/briefs/biden-administration-to-rapidly-expel-more-migrants-at-the-border-add-legal-pathways/" target="_blank">created the CHNV program in 2023</a>. It temporarily granted work permits and allowed thousands of nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to remain in the country if they were sponsored by someone in the United States and passed a background check.

<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>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">Ariana Figueroa</a>WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday said it will allow the Trump administration to remove deportation protections for more than 500,000 nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who were given permission to temporarily remain and work in the United States by the Biden administration.The move by the high court — which permits the deportations while a lawsuit continues to work its way through the courts — came after a district court in Massachusetts in April blocked the Trump administration from ending the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, or CHNV, program for 532,000 people.It’s the second decision by the Supreme Court this month stripping immigrants of some form of temporary legal protections, affecting more than 800,000 people in the country without permanent legal status who are now subject to swift deportation.<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-lets-trump-end-protected-status-350000-venezuelan-migrants" target="_blank">On May 19, the Supreme Court allowed</a>&nbsp;the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for 350,000 Venezuelans who were granted the protection from deportation because their home country was deemed too unstable to return to due to the political regime.Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin welcomed the ruling.“Ending the CHNV parole programs, as well as the paroles of those who exploited it, will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety, and a return to America First,” she said in a statement.Todd Schulte, the president of the immigration advocacy group FWD.us, said in a statement that the high court’s decision “penalizes half a million people for complying with our immigration laws.”“This decision will have devastating and immediate consequences, and is part of a broader attempt by the executive branch to justify further immigration enforcement crackdowns against families across the country,” Schulte said. “The government failed to show any harm remotely comparable to that which will come from a half million people losing their jobs and becoming subject to deportation.”&nbsp;Friday’s case is one of several immigration-related emergency requests the Department of Justice has brought to the high court, as the Trump administration aims to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/supreme-court-permits-trump-use-wartime-law-deportations-now-and-limits" target="_blank">carry out mass deportations</a>, wind down temporary legal pathways for immigrants and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-hear-case-trumps-birthright-citizenship-order" target="_blank">redefine the constitutional right of birthright citizenship.</a><h2>No judicial review for parole, DOJ argues</h2><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A1079/358354/20250508121118618_Kristi_Noem_v_Svitlana_Doe_et_al_%20application_stay.pdf" target="_blank">In the emergency filing</a>&nbsp;to the high court in Friday’s case, Solicitor General D. John Sauer&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-asks-us-supreme-court-end-humanitarian-protections-migrants-4-nations" target="_blank">argued&nbsp;</a>that the Immigration Nationality Act bars judicial review of discretionary decisions, such as what is called humanitarian parole, for the CHNV program.He added that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem terminated the program because it does not align with the interests of the Trump administration.Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.“The Court has plainly botched this assessment today,” Jackson wrote in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1079_p86b.pdf" target="_blank">her dissent.</a>&nbsp;“It undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.”She argued that the Trump administration did not prove it would be harmed by the preliminary injunction.&nbsp;An appeals court previously rejected the government’s request to put the lower court’s order on hold.“While it is apparent that the Government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize—not maximize—harm to litigating parties,” Jackson wrote.President Joe Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://georgiarecorder.com/briefs/biden-administration-to-rapidly-expel-more-migrants-at-the-border-add-legal-pathways/" target="_blank">created the CHNV program in 2023</a>. It temporarily granted work permits and allowed thousands of nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to remain in the country if they were sponsored by someone in the United States and passed a background check.

US Supreme Court permits deportation of another half million migrants, for now

WASHINGTON— Hormel Foods Corporation, a Tucker, Ga. establishment, is recalling approximately 256,185 pounds of canned beef stew product that may be contaminated with foreign material, specifically wood, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced this week, according to a media release.

The canned beef stew item was produced on February 4, 2025. The following product is subject to recall [<a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/food_label_pdf/2025-05/recall-018-2025-labels.pdf">view labels</a>]:

The product subject to recall bears establishment number “EST 199G” printed on the can. These items were shipped to retail locations nationwide.

The problem was discovered after the establishment notified FSIS that they had received three consumer complaints reporting pieces of wood in the beef stew product.

There have been no confirmed reports of injury due to consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an injury should contact a healthcare provider.&nbsp;&nbsp;

FSIS is concerned that some product may be in consumers’ pantries. Consumers who have purchased this product are urged not to consume it. This product should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at&nbsp;www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and members of the media with questions about the recall can contact Hormel Foods Corporation at 800-523-4635 or media@hormel.com.

Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 888-MPHotline (888-674-6854) or send a question via email to MPHotline@usda.gov. For consumers that need to report a problem with a meat, poultry, or egg product, the online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at https://foodcomplaint.fsis.usda.gov/eCCF/.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748601779129.png" alt="USDA courtesy image" />
 <figcaption>USDA courtesy image</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON— Hormel Foods Corporation, a Tucker, Ga. establishment, is recalling approximately 256,185 pounds of canned beef stew product that may be contaminated with foreign material, specifically wood, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced this week, according to a media release.The canned beef stew item was produced on February 4, 2025. The following product is subject to recall [<a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/food_label_pdf/2025-05/recall-018-2025-labels.pdf">view labels</a>]:<ul>
 <li>20-oz. metal cans containing “Dinty Moore BEEF STEW” with “BEST BY FEB 2028” and lot code “T02045” printed on the can. The lot code may have an additional number at the end.</li>
 </ul>The product subject to recall bears establishment number “EST 199G” printed on the can. These items were shipped to retail locations nationwide.The problem was discovered after the establishment notified FSIS that they had received three consumer complaints reporting pieces of wood in the beef stew product.There have been no confirmed reports of injury due to consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an injury should contact a healthcare provider.&nbsp;&nbsp;FSIS is concerned that some product may be in consumers’ pantries. Consumers who have purchased this product are urged not to consume it. This product should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at&nbsp;www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.Consumers and members of the media with questions about the recall can contact Hormel Foods Corporation at 800-523-4635 or media@hormel.com.Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 888-MPHotline (888-674-6854) or send a question via email to MPHotline@usda.gov. For consumers that need to report a problem with a meat, poultry, or egg product, the online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at https://foodcomplaint.fsis.usda.gov/eCCF/.

USDA recalls 256,000 pounds of Dinty Moore beef stew 

COLUMBUS, Neb. — A man was shot and killed Tuesday evening in the parking lot of a Walmart in Columbus, and police say the suspect, who later turned himself in, is the victim’s stepson.

Columbus police responded to the shooting around 6:20 p.m. at the Walmart on East 23rd Street. Officers arrived to find 42-year-old Anhil Mirabal Hernandez with a gunshot wound to the chest. They provided aid until medics from the Columbus Fire Department arrived.

Mirabal Hernandez was transported to Columbus Community Hospital, where he later died from his injuries, police said.

Shortly after the shooting, 26-year-old Manuel Mesa Cabrera turned himself in to police. Authorities confirmed that Cabrera is the victim’s stepson. He was arrested and booked into the Platte County Detention Facility on charges of first-degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony.

COLUMBUS, Neb. — A man was shot and killed Tuesday evening in the parking lot of a Walmart in Columbus, and police say the suspect, who later turned himself in, is the victim’s stepson.Columbus police responded to the shooting around 6:20 p.m. at the Walmart on East 23rd Street. Officers arrived to find 42-year-old Anhil Mirabal Hernandez with a gunshot wound to the chest. They provided aid until medics from the Columbus Fire Department arrived.Mirabal Hernandez was transported to Columbus Community Hospital, where he later died from his injuries, police said.Shortly after the shooting, 26-year-old Manuel Mesa Cabrera turned himself in to police. Authorities confirmed that Cabrera is the victim’s stepson. He was arrested and booked into the Platte County Detention Facility on charges of first-degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748545352215.jpeg" alt="Manuel Mesa Cabrera (Platte Valley Detention Facility)" />
 <figcaption>Manuel Mesa Cabrera (Platte Valley Detention Facility)</figcaption>
 </figure>The investigation is ongoing.

Man killed in Columbus Walmart parking lot shooting; suspect in custody

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska lawmakers gave final approval Tuesday to a bill that imposes new regulations on behavioral health contractors, managed care organizations and Medicaid auditing practices.

Senators voted 48-1 to pass LB380, introduced by Sen. John Fredrickson of Omaha. The measure directs the state Department of Health and Human Services to tighten oversight of behavioral health services and enforce stricter rules on contractors working through the state’s managed care organizations.

Under the bill, the DHHS Division of Medicaid and Long-Term Care must define what constitutes network adequacy and ensure contractor compliance with federal and state mental health and substance use disorder coverage requirements.

Managed care organizations will face several new restrictions under LB380. They are:

LB380 also incorporates provisions from LB381, another measure by Fredrickson aimed at increasing transparency and oversight of Medicaid audits.

Those provisions require audit contractors to provide clear reasons for initiating an audit and establish an appeals process. Overpayment recoveries cannot begin until appeals are resolved—except in cases involving credible fraud allegations. Claim reviews will be limited to within three years of payment, and document requests must be relevant and proportional to the services under audit.

The bill includes language from LB610, introduced by Sen. Eliot Bostar of Lincoln, allowing DHHS to seek federal approval for the Ground Emergency Medical Transport Act. The department would be authorized to distribute supplemental Medicaid reimbursements to providers for ground emergency medical transport services, not exceeding the federal financial participation received from submitted claims.

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska lawmakers gave final approval Tuesday to a bill that imposes new regulations on behavioral health contractors, managed care organizations and Medicaid auditing practices.Senators voted 48-1 to pass LB380, introduced by Sen. John Fredrickson of Omaha. The measure directs the state Department of Health and Human Services to tighten oversight of behavioral health services and enforce stricter rules on contractors working through the state’s managed care organizations.Under the bill, the DHHS Division of Medicaid and Long-Term Care must define what constitutes network adequacy and ensure contractor compliance with federal and state mental health and substance use disorder coverage requirements.The legislation also mandates:<ul>
 <li>Public access to contractor surveys, financial analyses, audits and parity reports.
</li><li>Regulation of mental health and substance use disorder provider access, including network and rate adequacy.
</li><li>A monthly electronic communication system for Medicaid providers, including notice of any managed care contract changes.
</li><li>Annual publication of the criteria used to assess the adequacy of managed care organization networks.
</li>
 </ul>Managed care organizations will face several new restrictions under LB380. They are:<ul>
 <li>Barred from imposing stricter limits on mental health and substance use disorder services than on other medical conditions.
</li><li>Required to maintain sufficient provider networks for behavioral health services.
</li><li>Required to apply recognized standards of care and publicly disclose utilization review policies.
</li><li>Prohibited from retroactively denying authorization for mental health or substance use disorder services once provided.
</li>
 </ul>LB380 also incorporates provisions from LB381, another measure by Fredrickson aimed at increasing transparency and oversight of Medicaid audits.Those provisions require audit contractors to provide clear reasons for initiating an audit and establish an appeals process. Overpayment recoveries cannot begin until appeals are resolved—except in cases involving credible fraud allegations. Claim reviews will be limited to within three years of payment, and document requests must be relevant and proportional to the services under audit.The bill includes language from LB610, introduced by Sen. Eliot Bostar of Lincoln, allowing DHHS to seek federal approval for the Ground Emergency Medical Transport Act. The department would be authorized to distribute supplemental Medicaid reimbursements to providers for ground emergency medical transport services, not exceeding the federal financial participation received from submitted claims.

Nebraska Legislature Passes Bill Tightening Rules for Behavioral Health Contractors, Medicaid Audits

Bayer is reportedly considering dropping signature product as litigation costs mount and company fails in effort to obtain legal shelter from lawmakers

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/rudi-keller/">RUDI KELLER</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

German chemical giant Bayer received no relief from runaway litigation costs associated with Roundup herbicide Tuesday when the Western District Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a $611 million judgment that its product causes cancer.

The decision, in a case&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=WD87059&amp;inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0001_WAP" target="_blank">involving three plaintiffs</a>&nbsp;who&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=22AC-CC00043&amp;inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0004_CT19#header" target="_blank">sued in Cole County</a>, is one of the reasons the company, which acquired Roundup as a product when it merged with Monsanto, in 2018, is considering&nbsp;<a href="https://www.producer.com/news/bayer-says-it-could-halt-roundup-weedkiller-sales-over-legal-risks/" target="_blank">dropping the product entirely</a>. The company faces 67,000 lawsuits claiming the main ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with many of those cases awaiting trial in St. Louis County, where the company has its Bayer Crop Science headquarters.

The company&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/02/18/missouri-house-debate-shows-gop-split-over-bill-to-protect-pesticide-makers/">failed to win passage</a>&nbsp;of a bill intended to shield it from litigation in Missouri. The bill narrowly passed the House but lobbying missteps, including a campaign targeting some of the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/02/25/political-attacks-stiffen-opposition-to-missouri-bill-to-protect-pesticide-makers/">most conservative members</a>&nbsp;of the state Senate, doomed it. The company did win passage of similar legislation&nbsp;<a href="https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/04/14/bill-protecting-pesticide-availability-prevails-in-north-dakota-senate/" target="_blank">in North Dakota</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJXrKePs5Wk" target="_blank">in Georgia</a>.

In November 2023, a Cole County jury awarded $1.6 billion to three plaintiffs who claimed their cancer was caused by glyphosate exposure while using Roundup. Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green reduced the $500 million punitive damages awarded to each plaintiff, instead reducing each award by varying amounts.

Green did not change the amounts awarded for actual damages, which ranged from $5.6 million to $38 million and totaled $61.1 million.

With post-judgment interest, the total Bayer owes is now in excess of $700 million.

“We’re certainly pleased with the court of appeals decision that vindicates the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment,” said attorney Matthew Clement of Jefferson City, who represented the plaintiffs in the case. “We’re happy that nothing happened in the legislature, this year at least, that will affect future cases and and will continue to litigate our cases like we had been.”

In a statement issued through Bayer spokesman Brian Leake, the company said it would continue to appeal the case.

“We continue to believe that the trial court committed significant errors by allowing inadmissible and prejudicial testimony into the courtroom which poisoned the jury against the company,” the statement read.

Bayer is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take its appeal of a 2024 Missouri case awarding $1.25 million in damages to John Durnell of St. Louis. The Eastern District Court of Appeals upheld that decision in February and on April 1 the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court has given parties until June 9 to file arguments on whether it should accept the case.

“The overwhelming weight of science as well as the assessments of the EPA and leading health regulators and scientists worldwide that support the safety and non-carcinogenicity of Roundup and we will continue to defend our products in court,” the company stated.

Bayer has paid out at least $10 billion for jury awards and settlements and earlier this year said it had an additional $6 billion set aside. That fund will be depleted quickly if decisions like the one upheld Tuesday are allowed to stand and the company suffers more losses like a&nbsp; $2.1 billion judgment handed down in March&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/georgia-jury-orders-monsanto-parent-to-pay-nearly-2-1-billion-in-roundup-weedkiller-lawsuit#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20A,to%20attorneys%20representing%20the%20plaintiff." target="_blank">by a jury in Georgia</a>.&nbsp;

According to a report from Reuters, Roundup produced $2.8 billion in revenue for Bayer in 2024.

The bill protecting glyphosate from litigation passed the Georgia legislature a few weeks after the $2.1 billion award.

Gov. Mike Kehoe, at a news conference after lawmakers adjourned earlier this month, blamed defeat of the Missouri legislation on trial attorneys who have made “tens of millions of dollars” off the lawsuits.

“If, for some reason, that particular product is not produced anymore in the United States, farmers are still going to need that type of product, that type of weed control, and so that, glyphosate I think is what it’s called, will be produced somewhere,” Kehoe said. “And if it is, it won’t be produced in this country, and farmers will not have the same protections and liability recourse back on the companies who make it, if it’s made in China or somewhere overseas.”

Bayer is also being sued by shareholders in a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.thenewlede.org/2023/05/investors-awarded-class-action-status-in-new-bayer-lawsuit/" target="_blank">class action lawsuit</a>&nbsp;over its decision to spend $68 billion to acquire Monsanto in 2018. The lawsuit alleges Bayer misled investors over the risks of the acquisition and failed to properly perform due diligence before buying Monsanto,

When Bayer acquired Monsanto in June 2018, its stock price was about $30 a share. On Tuesday afternoon, the company’s shares were selling for $7 apiece.

In the appeal of the Cole County decision, Bayer argued that Green made numerous errors in the trial and in rulings on post-trial motions. The company’s lawyers’ main points challenged the admissibility of testimony about a case over EPA evaluations of glyphosate; surprise findings from an expert; the use made of medical billing records; and whether the punitive damages were unconstitutionally duplicative.

At the heart of most glyphosate cases, and the target of legislation, is the label and whether it includes a proper notice that glyphosate may cause cancer.

“The misconduct complained about in the complaints in the three California cases Monsanto relies on, and in (one plaintiff’s) petition, includes allegations that despite scientific evidence that Roundup was carcinogenic, Monsanto continued to sell Roundup, and that Monsanto failed to warn of the dangerous effects of using Roundup,” Judge Cynthia Martin wrote in the Western District opinion delivered Tuesday.

In a discussion of whether the punitive damage award should have been reduced more, Martin wrote that “Monsanto’s degree of reprehensibility was high.”

Martin noted that the evidence shows that while the EPA has registered Roundup “for sale since 1974, Monsanto has been aware since 1985 that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has the potential to cause cancer.”

Each of the plaintiffs suffered damages because Monsanto sold a product that was “unreasonably dangerous when used as reasonably anticipated” without altering the labeling to provide a warning.

“Monsanto’s awareness,” Martin wrote, “of studies demonstrating the possibility of a causal relationship between glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, and cancer, particularly NHL, and then its decision to double down on its defense of Roundup in lieu of changing the product’s formulation or adding a warning label regarding the risk posed by Roundup demonstrates, at best, Monsanto’s indifference to or reckless disregard of the health of its customers.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/6/1593022262288.png" alt="Post File photo" />
 <figcaption>Post File photo</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Bayer is reportedly considering dropping signature product as litigation costs mount and company fails in effort to obtain legal shelter from lawmakers</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/rudi-keller/">RUDI KELLER</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>German chemical giant Bayer received no relief from runaway litigation costs associated with Roundup herbicide Tuesday when the Western District Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a $611 million judgment that its product causes cancer.The decision, in a case&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=WD87059&amp;inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0001_WAP" target="_blank">involving three plaintiffs</a>&nbsp;who&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=22AC-CC00043&amp;inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0004_CT19#header" target="_blank">sued in Cole County</a>, is one of the reasons the company, which acquired Roundup as a product when it merged with Monsanto, in 2018, is considering&nbsp;<a href="https://www.producer.com/news/bayer-says-it-could-halt-roundup-weedkiller-sales-over-legal-risks/" target="_blank">dropping the product entirely</a>. The company faces 67,000 lawsuits claiming the main ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with many of those cases awaiting trial in St. Louis County, where the company has its Bayer Crop Science headquarters.The company&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/02/18/missouri-house-debate-shows-gop-split-over-bill-to-protect-pesticide-makers/">failed to win passage</a>&nbsp;of a bill intended to shield it from litigation in Missouri. The bill narrowly passed the House but lobbying missteps, including a campaign targeting some of the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/02/25/political-attacks-stiffen-opposition-to-missouri-bill-to-protect-pesticide-makers/">most conservative members</a>&nbsp;of the state Senate, doomed it. The company did win passage of similar legislation&nbsp;<a href="https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/04/14/bill-protecting-pesticide-availability-prevails-in-north-dakota-senate/" target="_blank">in North Dakota</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJXrKePs5Wk" target="_blank">in Georgia</a>.In November 2023, a Cole County jury awarded $1.6 billion to three plaintiffs who claimed their cancer was caused by glyphosate exposure while using Roundup. Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green reduced the $500 million punitive damages awarded to each plaintiff, instead reducing each award by varying amounts.Green did not change the amounts awarded for actual damages, which ranged from $5.6 million to $38 million and totaled $61.1 million.With post-judgment interest, the total Bayer owes is now in excess of $700 million.“We’re certainly pleased with the court of appeals decision that vindicates the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment,” said attorney Matthew Clement of Jefferson City, who represented the plaintiffs in the case. “We’re happy that nothing happened in the legislature, this year at least, that will affect future cases and and will continue to litigate our cases like we had been.”In a statement issued through Bayer spokesman Brian Leake, the company said it would continue to appeal the case.“We continue to believe that the trial court committed significant errors by allowing inadmissible and prejudicial testimony into the courtroom which poisoned the jury against the company,” the statement read.Bayer is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take its appeal of a 2024 Missouri case awarding $1.25 million in damages to John Durnell of St. Louis. The Eastern District Court of Appeals upheld that decision in February and on April 1 the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.The U.S. Supreme Court has given parties until June 9 to file arguments on whether it should accept the case.“The overwhelming weight of science as well as the assessments of the EPA and leading health regulators and scientists worldwide that support the safety and non-carcinogenicity of Roundup and we will continue to defend our products in court,” the company stated.Bayer has paid out at least $10 billion for jury awards and settlements and earlier this year said it had an additional $6 billion set aside. That fund will be depleted quickly if decisions like the one upheld Tuesday are allowed to stand and the company suffers more losses like a&nbsp; $2.1 billion judgment handed down in March&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/georgia-jury-orders-monsanto-parent-to-pay-nearly-2-1-billion-in-roundup-weedkiller-lawsuit#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20A,to%20attorneys%20representing%20the%20plaintiff." target="_blank">by a jury in Georgia</a>.&nbsp;According to a report from Reuters, Roundup produced $2.8 billion in revenue for Bayer in 2024.The bill protecting glyphosate from litigation passed the Georgia legislature a few weeks after the $2.1 billion award.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748460279946.png" alt=" State Sen. Brad Hudson of Cape Fair speaks at a news conference Feb. 25 about flyers sent to his constituents attacking his opposition to a bill limiting lawsuits against Bayer over its herbicide Roundup. Joining Hudson, from left, are Sens. Nick Schroer of Defiance, Ben Brown of Washington, Joe Nicola of Independence, Mike Moon of Ash Grove, Rick Brattin of Harrisonville, Adam Schnelting of St. Charles, Jill Carter of Joplin and David Gregory of Chesterfield (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption> State Sen. Brad Hudson of Cape Fair speaks at a news conference Feb. 25 about flyers sent to his constituents attacking his opposition to a bill limiting lawsuits against Bayer over its herbicide Roundup. Joining Hudson, from left, are Sens. Nick Schroer of Defiance, Ben Brown of Washington, Joe Nicola of Independence, Mike Moon of Ash Grove, Rick Brattin of Harrisonville, Adam Schnelting of St. Charles, Jill Carter of Joplin and David Gregory of Chesterfield (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure>Gov. Mike Kehoe, at a news conference after lawmakers adjourned earlier this month, blamed defeat of the Missouri legislation on trial attorneys who have made “tens of millions of dollars” off the lawsuits.“If, for some reason, that particular product is not produced anymore in the United States, farmers are still going to need that type of product, that type of weed control, and so that, glyphosate I think is what it’s called, will be produced somewhere,” Kehoe said. “And if it is, it won’t be produced in this country, and farmers will not have the same protections and liability recourse back on the companies who make it, if it’s made in China or somewhere overseas.”Bayer is also being sued by shareholders in a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.thenewlede.org/2023/05/investors-awarded-class-action-status-in-new-bayer-lawsuit/" target="_blank">class action lawsuit</a>&nbsp;over its decision to spend $68 billion to acquire Monsanto in 2018. The lawsuit alleges Bayer misled investors over the risks of the acquisition and failed to properly perform due diligence before buying Monsanto,When Bayer acquired Monsanto in June 2018, its stock price was about $30 a share. On Tuesday afternoon, the company’s shares were selling for $7 apiece.In the appeal of the Cole County decision, Bayer argued that Green made numerous errors in the trial and in rulings on post-trial motions. The company’s lawyers’ main points challenged the admissibility of testimony about a case over EPA evaluations of glyphosate; surprise findings from an expert; the use made of medical billing records; and whether the punitive damages were unconstitutionally duplicative.At the heart of most glyphosate cases, and the target of legislation, is the label and whether it includes a proper notice that glyphosate may cause cancer.“The misconduct complained about in the complaints in the three California cases Monsanto relies on, and in (one plaintiff’s) petition, includes allegations that despite scientific evidence that Roundup was carcinogenic, Monsanto continued to sell Roundup, and that Monsanto failed to warn of the dangerous effects of using Roundup,” Judge Cynthia Martin wrote in the Western District opinion delivered Tuesday.In a discussion of whether the punitive damage award should have been reduced more, Martin wrote that “Monsanto’s degree of reprehensibility was high.”Martin noted that the evidence shows that while the EPA has registered Roundup “for sale since 1974, Monsanto has been aware since 1985 that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has the potential to cause cancer.”Each of the plaintiffs suffered damages because Monsanto sold a product that was “unreasonably dangerous when used as reasonably anticipated” without altering the labeling to provide a warning.“Monsanto’s awareness,” Martin wrote, “of studies demonstrating the possibility of a causal relationship between glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, and cancer, particularly NHL, and then its decision to double down on its defense of Roundup in lieu of changing the product’s formulation or adding a warning label regarding the risk posed by Roundup demonstrates, at best, Monsanto’s indifference to or reckless disregard of the health of its customers.”

Appeals court upholds $611M judgment in Roundup liability case

&nbsp;Rian Camty, 14, an 8th grade student at Millard North Middle School in Omaha advanced to the Wednesday quarterfinals of the Scripps National Spelling Bee, according to the bee web site. He did not advance to the semi finals.

Sixty spellers were eliminated in preliminary spelling and vocabulary rounds. That left 183 who took the written spelling and vocabulary test. That test eliminated 84 more. The quarterfinals on Wednesday began with 99 spellers and 60 advanced to the semifinals.

<a href="https://spellingbee.com/watch">Click here for details&nbsp;</a>on how to watch the competition

A 14-year-old student from Omaha is competing at this week's Scripps National Spelling Bee in Washington, DC. The bee celebrates its&nbsp;100th anniversary this year.

<a href="https://spellingbee.com/watch">Click here for details </a>on how to watch the competition

&nbsp;Rian Camty, 14, an 8th grade student at Millard North Middle School in Omaha advanced to the Wednesday quarterfinals of the Scripps National Spelling Bee, according to the bee web site. He did not advance to the semi finals.Sixty spellers were eliminated in preliminary spelling and vocabulary rounds. That left 183 who took the written spelling and vocabulary test. That test eliminated 84 more. The quarterfinals on Wednesday began with 99 spellers and 60 advanced to the semifinals.<a href="https://spellingbee.com/watch">Click here for details&nbsp;</a>on how to watch the competition------------------A 14-year-old student from Omaha is competing at this week's Scripps National Spelling Bee in Washington, DC. The bee celebrates its&nbsp;100th anniversary this year.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748380603065.png" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure><a href="https://spellingbee.com/watch">Click here for details </a>on how to watch the competition

Nebraska teen eliminated at Scripps National Spelling Bee

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – A Kansas City man pleaded guilty in federal court for his role in a scheme in which the conspirators stole hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of merchandise from beauty and liquor stores across six states, according to the United State's Attorney.

Gary Bailey, 24, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Greg Kays, to one count of conspiring to transport and possess stolen property and one count of interstate transportation of stolen property.

By pleading guilty, Bailey admitted that between March 2023 and January 2024, he participated in burglarizing at least 23 stores across Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Bailey and his co-conspirators brought the stolen product back to Kansas City, before either selling it, giving it away to family or friends, or consuming the product themselves. The loss to these 23 victim businesses exceeded $418,000.

On April 22, 2025, co-conspirator Donald Bennett pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to transport and possess stolen property, one count of interstate transportation of stolen property, and one count of money laundering.

As part of the plea agreement, Bailey must pay restitution to the victim businesses; the exact amount to be determined at his sentencing hearing. Under federal statutes, Bailey is subject to a sentence of up to 10 years in federal prison without parole. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – A Kansas City man pleaded guilty in federal court for his role in a scheme in which the conspirators stole hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of merchandise from beauty and liquor stores across six states, according to the United State's Attorney.Gary Bailey, 24, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Greg Kays, to one count of conspiring to transport and possess stolen property and one count of interstate transportation of stolen property.By pleading guilty, Bailey admitted that between March 2023 and January 2024, he participated in burglarizing at least 23 stores across Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Bailey and his co-conspirators brought the stolen product back to Kansas City, before either selling it, giving it away to family or friends, or consuming the product themselves. The loss to these 23 victim businesses exceeded $418,000.On April 22, 2025, co-conspirator Donald Bennett pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to transport and possess stolen property, one count of interstate transportation of stolen property, and one count of money laundering.As part of the plea agreement, Bailey must pay restitution to the victim businesses; the exact amount to be determined at his sentencing hearing. Under federal statutes, Bailey is subject to a sentence of up to 10 years in federal prison without parole. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office.

Man admits stealing $400K worth of goods in Nebraska, 5 other states

LINCOLN, Neb. — Nebraska lawmakers could get another chance to vote on a bill that would scale back scheduled increases to the state's minimum wage after approving a motion May 22 to reconsider a failed vote from the previous week.

The bill, LB258, introduced by Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln, would replace a voter-approved plan to annually adjust the minimum wage based on the Midwest Consumer Price Index with a fixed annual increase of 1.75%. Voters passed the current law in November 2022, setting the minimum wage to rise incrementally to $15 an hour by Jan. 1, 2026, with inflation-based adjustments thereafter. The wage is currently $13.50 an hour.

In addition to changing the adjustment formula, LB258 would establish a $13.50-an-hour youth minimum wage for workers ages 14 and 15, and apply the same rate through 2026 to the 90-day training wage for employees under age 20. Both the youth and training wages would increase by 1.5% annually starting in 2027, with youth wages rising every five years beginning in 2030. Emancipated minors would be excluded from the youth wage provision.

The bill fell two votes short of the required 33-vote supermajority for final passage on May 14, failing 31-17. Measures that alter laws enacted by ballot initiative require a two-thirds majority in the Legislature.

Sen. Beau Ballard of Lincoln, who supported the bill but did not vote during the May 14 roll call, filed the motion to reconsider, citing the absence of another supporter at the time. Ballard said while rare, reconsideration is allowed under legislative rules and has precedent, including in 1984.

“I think this is the right motion, it is well in order and it’s the right thing for this Legislature,” Ballard said during debate.

Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha opposed the move, calling it “shameful” and a break from legislative norms.

“Proponents of this measure lost fair and square and now they want a do-over,” Hunt said.

The motion to reconsider passed on a 33-16 vote. No new date has been set for a second vote on final passage of LB258.

LINCOLN, Neb. — Nebraska lawmakers could get another chance to vote on a bill that would scale back scheduled increases to the state's minimum wage after approving a motion May 22 to reconsider a failed vote from the previous week.The bill, LB258, introduced by Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln, would replace a voter-approved plan to annually adjust the minimum wage based on the Midwest Consumer Price Index with a fixed annual increase of 1.75%. Voters passed the current law in November 2022, setting the minimum wage to rise incrementally to $15 an hour by Jan. 1, 2026, with inflation-based adjustments thereafter. The wage is currently $13.50 an hour.In addition to changing the adjustment formula, LB258 would establish a $13.50-an-hour youth minimum wage for workers ages 14 and 15, and apply the same rate through 2026 to the 90-day training wage for employees under age 20. Both the youth and training wages would increase by 1.5% annually starting in 2027, with youth wages rising every five years beginning in 2030. Emancipated minors would be excluded from the youth wage provision.The bill fell two votes short of the required 33-vote supermajority for final passage on May 14, failing 31-17. Measures that alter laws enacted by ballot initiative require a two-thirds majority in the Legislature.Sen. Beau Ballard of Lincoln, who supported the bill but did not vote during the May 14 roll call, filed the motion to reconsider, citing the absence of another supporter at the time. Ballard said while rare, reconsideration is allowed under legislative rules and has precedent, including in 1984.“I think this is the right motion, it is well in order and it’s the right thing for this Legislature,” Ballard said during debate.Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha opposed the move, calling it “shameful” and a break from legislative norms.“Proponents of this measure lost fair and square and now they want a do-over,” Hunt said.The motion to reconsider passed on a 33-16 vote. No new date has been set for a second vote on final passage of LB258.

Vote on state minimum wage may be reconsidered

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/sofia-resnick/">Sofia Resnick</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/charlotte-rene-woods/">Charlotte Rene Woods</a>&nbsp; <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2023/03/30/u-s-judge-rules-insurers-dont-have-to-cover-many-free-preventive-health-services/">States Newsroom</a>

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Abortion pills — and questions over their inherent safety — were back in federal court Monday. Unlike a lawsuit rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, plaintiffs this time are not anti-abortion activists arguing medication abortion should be banned, but abortion providers arguing the remaining restrictions should be lifted to match the drug’s 25-year record of safety and efficacy.

The suit seeks to make abortion pills more accessible by removing several existing restrictions on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s mifepristone-misoprostol regimen first approved in 2000. The drug was approved under the FDA’s drug safety program called Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), provisions of which have been steadily eliminated over time but not fully.

On behalf of independent providers in Virginia, Montana, and Kansas, Center for Reproductive Rights senior counsel Linda Goldstein argued the FDA’s most recent evaluations did not properly assess whether remaining restrictions are still medically necessary. She argued that the biggest risks the FDA has identified with mifepristone — serious bleeding and infection — are not exclusive to the drug but with all pregnancy terminations, including spontaneous miscarriages, which she said affected about 25% of all pregnancies. Beyond abortion, for which the drug has captured attention, mifepristone is also used to treat miscarriages so that they conclude safely to help prevent infection.

“The FDA has acknowledged that staying pregnant is more dangerous than not staying pregnant,” said Goldstein, arguing that at minimum the FDA should be required to explain why drugs that pose similar risks are not subject to the same restrictions.

She noted that of the 20,000 drugs the FDA has approved,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=20%2C000+drugs+the+FDA+has+approved%2C+only+73+have+REMS+provisions&amp;oq=20%2C000+drugs+the+FDA+has+approved%2C+only+73+have+REMS+provisions&amp;gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOdIBBzMyNGowajmoAgCwAgE&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">only 73</a>&nbsp;have REMS provisions, and that mifepristone has proven to be a safe drug over time. About 7.5 million U.S. patients have taken it as of the end of last year, Goldstein said. As of December 2024, the FDA has reported&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/questions-and-answers-mifepristone-medical-termination-pregnancy-through-ten-weeks-gestation#:~:text=As%20of%20December%2031%2C%202024,several%20fatal%20cases%20of%20severe" target="_blank">36 patient deaths</a>&nbsp;associated with mifepristone since it was first approved in 2000.

Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v. FDA is the first time the U.S. Department of Justice is arguing a position on mifepristone in court since the Trump administration took office. Justice Department attorneys said current regulations are necessary for the most common form of pregnancy termination to be considered safe. When asked by the judge, DOJ attorney Noah Katzen did not confirm or deny whether or not the FDA still considers the drug to be safe and effective overall.

“That is what the FDA determined in the past,” Katzen said during the hearing at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in Charlottesville, where the case was originally filed in 2023.

Katzen, the FDA’s former associate chief counsel until 2021 and currently a trial attorney for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said the FDA has found that the evidence was “not sufficient” to conclude the REMS are no longer necessary.

U.S. District Judge Robert S. Ballou, appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, appeared more sympathetic to plaintiffs’ argument that some of the requirements appear arbitrary in that they don’t apply to other drugs with equal or greater risk, including drugs his parents have taken.&nbsp;

Ballou did not rule at the end of Monday’s hearing but said he would as soon as possible.

After the hearing, Whole Woman’s Health Alliance founder and president Amy Hagstrom Miller told States Newsroom she took note of Katzen’s response about whether the FDA considers mifepristone to be safe and effective.

“It was an interesting choice of words,” she said.

This<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67347356/whole-womans-health-alliance-v-united-states-food-and-drug-administration/https:/www.courtlistener.com/docket/67347356/whole-womans-health-alliance-v-united-states-food-and-drug-administration/" target="_blank">&nbsp;lawsuit</a>&nbsp;is among several federal cases involving mifepristone. Earlier this month, the Trump administration filed a brief in the case Missouri v. FDA, requesting the court<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-administration-asks-dismiss-suit-3-gop-states-trying-limit-abortion-pill" target="_blank">&nbsp;dismiss three states’ lawsuit</a>&nbsp;to restrict mifepristone on procedural grounds, but did not comment on the merits of the case or explicitly defend the FDA’s current medication abortion policy.

While the Missouri v. FDA lawsuit seeks to reinstate regulations loosened between 2016 and 2021, the Whole Woman’s Health v. FDA lawsuit takes aim at restrictions that require: medical professionals who prescribe mifepristone to register with the drug manufacturer; pharmacies to apply for special certification and maintain copious records, and patients to review and sign a counseling form.

On behalf of plaintiffs, which include Whole Woman’s Health Alliance in Virginia and other states, All Families Healthcare and Blue Mountain Clinic in Montana, and Trust Women in Kansas, Goldstein argued that these existing rules are burdensome and make these medications harder to access by limiting the number of providers and pharmacies who can provide and dispense it and impede access to time-sensitive care.

Goldstein noted the “political climate” surrounding mifepristone and pointed to how abortion opponents seek either rescinding of FDA approval for mifepristone or a return to the in-person dispensing requirements. She added how efforts to make abortion medication more&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2024/06/28/mcclellan-spanberger-work-to-repeal-parts-of-19th-century-law-that-could-ban-abortion-nationally/" target="_blank">difficult to obtain</a>&nbsp;are outlined in Project 2025 — the conservative Heritage Foundation’s playbook.

Before and especially since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, anti-abortion groups have tried to convince courts that abortion pills, in addition to ending the lives of embryos and fetuses, harm pregnant people at rates that warrant being pulled from the market or at the very least heavily restricted.

During his presidential campaign and since taking office, President Donald Trump and his health appointees have messaged strategically on medication abortion, on the one hand promising to retain its access while also open to examining new evidence suggesting it is unsafe.

Just last week, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would direct the FDA to review abortion pill safety and potentially change its drug label, following the release of an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/hhs-agrees-review-mifepristone-safety-based-anti-abortion-white-papers" target="_blank">anti-abortion white paper</a>&nbsp;commissioned by far-right funders, whose analysis has been widely criticized by reproductive health scientists and is outflanked by hundreds of studies showing a very low rate of serious adverse events.

Hagstrom Miller called the current restrictions “politically motivated” and said overturning them would be especially significant for Virginia, which as the least restrictive state in the South, has seen an uptick in people traveling from elsewhere to receive care.

“They’re not related to the safety of the medication,”&nbsp;Hagstrom Miller&nbsp;said, of the current restrictions. “We just want to ensure that the most popular method for abortion in Virginia and beyond is protected no matter who sits at the White House and who sits in the FDA.”

Virginia is in the process of amending its state constitution to enshrine abortion and other reproductive health care procedures or medications. The&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2025/02/13/virginia-moves-to-protect-reproductive-and-voting-rights-but-the-fight-is-far-from-over/" target="_blank">constitutional amendment</a>&nbsp;passed the legislature on party-line votes this year and must pass again next year before appearing on ballots for voters statewide. Its continued success or failure hinges on the outcome of the state’s competitive House of Delegates elections — where Democrats hold a slim majority.

While governors don’t have a say in constitutional amendments, the issue is a&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2025/04/02/virginia-march-for-life-tees-up-constitutional-amendment-ahead-of-this-years-elections/" target="_blank">divergence</a>&nbsp;between gubernatorial candidates Lt. Gov.&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2025/05/08/earle-sears-morally-opposed-to-virginias-reproductive-rights-amendment-note-shows/" target="_blank">Winsome Earle-Sears</a>&nbsp;and Democratic challenger former Congresswoman&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2024/06/28/mcclellan-spanberger-work-to-repeal-parts-of-19th-century-law-that-could-ban-abortion-nationally/" target="_blank">Abigail Spanberger</a>. This means that should the amendment fail and partisan control of the House shift, whoever is the next governor could advance or block potential future efforts to walk back Virginia’s current abortion access laws.&nbsp;

“It’s really important that we protect that safe access to medication abortion no matter where people live — Virginia is playing a key role in the South right now,”&nbsp;Hagstrom Miller said.

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/sofia-resnick/">Sofia Resnick</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/charlotte-rene-woods/">Charlotte Rene Woods</a>&nbsp; <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2023/03/30/u-s-judge-rules-insurers-dont-have-to-cover-many-free-preventive-health-services/">States Newsroom</a>CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Abortion pills — and questions over their inherent safety — were back in federal court Monday. Unlike a lawsuit rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, plaintiffs this time are not anti-abortion activists arguing medication abortion should be banned, but abortion providers arguing the remaining restrictions should be lifted to match the drug’s 25-year record of safety and efficacy.The suit seeks to make abortion pills more accessible by removing several existing restrictions on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s mifepristone-misoprostol regimen first approved in 2000. The drug was approved under the FDA’s drug safety program called Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), provisions of which have been steadily eliminated over time but not fully.On behalf of independent providers in Virginia, Montana, and Kansas, Center for Reproductive Rights senior counsel Linda Goldstein argued the FDA’s most recent evaluations did not properly assess whether remaining restrictions are still medically necessary. She argued that the biggest risks the FDA has identified with mifepristone — serious bleeding and infection — are not exclusive to the drug but with all pregnancy terminations, including spontaneous miscarriages, which she said affected about 25% of all pregnancies. Beyond abortion, for which the drug has captured attention, mifepristone is also used to treat miscarriages so that they conclude safely to help prevent infection.“The FDA has acknowledged that staying pregnant is more dangerous than not staying pregnant,” said Goldstein, arguing that at minimum the FDA should be required to explain why drugs that pose similar risks are not subject to the same restrictions.She noted that of the 20,000 drugs the FDA has approved,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=20%2C000+drugs+the+FDA+has+approved%2C+only+73+have+REMS+provisions&amp;oq=20%2C000+drugs+the+FDA+has+approved%2C+only+73+have+REMS+provisions&amp;gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOdIBBzMyNGowajmoAgCwAgE&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">only 73</a>&nbsp;have REMS provisions, and that mifepristone has proven to be a safe drug over time. About 7.5 million U.S. patients have taken it as of the end of last year, Goldstein said. As of December 2024, the FDA has reported&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/questions-and-answers-mifepristone-medical-termination-pregnancy-through-ten-weeks-gestation#:~:text=As%20of%20December%2031%2C%202024,several%20fatal%20cases%20of%20severe" target="_blank">36 patient deaths</a>&nbsp;associated with mifepristone since it was first approved in 2000.Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v. FDA is the first time the U.S. Department of Justice is arguing a position on mifepristone in court since the Trump administration took office. Justice Department attorneys said current regulations are necessary for the most common form of pregnancy termination to be considered safe. When asked by the judge, DOJ attorney Noah Katzen did not confirm or deny whether or not the FDA still considers the drug to be safe and effective overall.“That is what the FDA determined in the past,” Katzen said during the hearing at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in Charlottesville, where the case was originally filed in 2023.Katzen, the FDA’s former associate chief counsel until 2021 and currently a trial attorney for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said the FDA has found that the evidence was “not sufficient” to conclude the REMS are no longer necessary.U.S. District Judge Robert S. Ballou, appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, appeared more sympathetic to plaintiffs’ argument that some of the requirements appear arbitrary in that they don’t apply to other drugs with equal or greater risk, including drugs his parents have taken.&nbsp;Ballou did not rule at the end of Monday’s hearing but said he would as soon as possible.After the hearing, Whole Woman’s Health Alliance founder and president Amy Hagstrom Miller told States Newsroom she took note of Katzen’s response about whether the FDA considers mifepristone to be safe and effective.“It was an interesting choice of words,” she said.This<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67347356/whole-womans-health-alliance-v-united-states-food-and-drug-administration/https:/www.courtlistener.com/docket/67347356/whole-womans-health-alliance-v-united-states-food-and-drug-administration/" target="_blank">&nbsp;lawsuit</a>&nbsp;is among several federal cases involving mifepristone. Earlier this month, the Trump administration filed a brief in the case Missouri v. FDA, requesting the court<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-administration-asks-dismiss-suit-3-gop-states-trying-limit-abortion-pill" target="_blank">&nbsp;dismiss three states’ lawsuit</a>&nbsp;to restrict mifepristone on procedural grounds, but did not comment on the merits of the case or explicitly defend the FDA’s current medication abortion policy.While the Missouri v. FDA lawsuit seeks to reinstate regulations loosened between 2016 and 2021, the Whole Woman’s Health v. FDA lawsuit takes aim at restrictions that require: medical professionals who prescribe mifepristone to register with the drug manufacturer; pharmacies to apply for special certification and maintain copious records, and patients to review and sign a counseling form.On behalf of plaintiffs, which include Whole Woman’s Health Alliance in Virginia and other states, All Families Healthcare and Blue Mountain Clinic in Montana, and Trust Women in Kansas, Goldstein argued that these existing rules are burdensome and make these medications harder to access by limiting the number of providers and pharmacies who can provide and dispense it and impede access to time-sensitive care.Goldstein noted the “political climate” surrounding mifepristone and pointed to how abortion opponents seek either rescinding of FDA approval for mifepristone or a return to the in-person dispensing requirements. She added how efforts to make abortion medication more&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2024/06/28/mcclellan-spanberger-work-to-repeal-parts-of-19th-century-law-that-could-ban-abortion-nationally/" target="_blank">difficult to obtain</a>&nbsp;are outlined in Project 2025 — the conservative Heritage Foundation’s playbook.Before and especially since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, anti-abortion groups have tried to convince courts that abortion pills, in addition to ending the lives of embryos and fetuses, harm pregnant people at rates that warrant being pulled from the market or at the very least heavily restricted.During his presidential campaign and since taking office, President Donald Trump and his health appointees have messaged strategically on medication abortion, on the one hand promising to retain its access while also open to examining new evidence suggesting it is unsafe.Just last week, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would direct the FDA to review abortion pill safety and potentially change its drug label, following the release of an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/hhs-agrees-review-mifepristone-safety-based-anti-abortion-white-papers" target="_blank">anti-abortion white paper</a>&nbsp;commissioned by far-right funders, whose analysis has been widely criticized by reproductive health scientists and is outflanked by hundreds of studies showing a very low rate of serious adverse events.<h2>Significant for the South&nbsp;</h2>Hagstrom Miller called the current restrictions “politically motivated” and said overturning them would be especially significant for Virginia, which as the least restrictive state in the South, has seen an uptick in people traveling from elsewhere to receive care.“They’re not related to the safety of the medication,”&nbsp;Hagstrom Miller&nbsp;said, of the current restrictions. “We just want to ensure that the most popular method for abortion in Virginia and beyond is protected no matter who sits at the White House and who sits in the FDA.”Virginia is in the process of amending its state constitution to enshrine abortion and other reproductive health care procedures or medications. The&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2025/02/13/virginia-moves-to-protect-reproductive-and-voting-rights-but-the-fight-is-far-from-over/" target="_blank">constitutional amendment</a>&nbsp;passed the legislature on party-line votes this year and must pass again next year before appearing on ballots for voters statewide. Its continued success or failure hinges on the outcome of the state’s competitive House of Delegates elections — where Democrats hold a slim majority.While governors don’t have a say in constitutional amendments, the issue is a&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2025/04/02/virginia-march-for-life-tees-up-constitutional-amendment-ahead-of-this-years-elections/" target="_blank">divergence</a>&nbsp;between gubernatorial candidates Lt. Gov.&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2025/05/08/earle-sears-morally-opposed-to-virginias-reproductive-rights-amendment-note-shows/" target="_blank">Winsome Earle-Sears</a>&nbsp;and Democratic challenger former Congresswoman&nbsp;<a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2024/06/28/mcclellan-spanberger-work-to-repeal-parts-of-19th-century-law-that-could-ban-abortion-nationally/" target="_blank">Abigail Spanberger</a>. This means that should the amendment fail and partisan control of the House shift, whoever is the next governor could advance or block potential future efforts to walk back Virginia’s current abortion access laws.&nbsp;“It’s really important that we protect that safe access to medication abortion no matter where people live — Virginia is playing a key role in the South right now,”&nbsp;Hagstrom Miller said.

Abortion providers challenge FDA’s remaining mifepristone restrictions in federal court

<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/VP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@VP</a>, and <a href="https://twitter.com/SecDef?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecDef</a> salute as The Star-Spangled Banner is played at Arlington National Cemetery <a href="https://t.co/NVetqZxCyr">pic.twitter.com/NVetqZxCyr</a>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1927025135065702443?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">President <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier 🇺🇸 <a href="https://t.co/YLyDQyQdXM">pic.twitter.com/YLyDQyQdXM</a>&mdash; Margo Martin (@MargoMartin47) <a href="https://twitter.com/MargoMartin47/status/1927027306377187555?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">President <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/VP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@VP</a>, and <a href="https://twitter.com/SecDef?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecDef</a> arrive at Arlington National Cemetery 🇺🇸 <a href="https://t.co/OLzMz3yRAR">pic.twitter.com/OLzMz3yRAR</a>&mdash; Margo Martin (@MargoMartin47) <a href="https://twitter.com/MargoMartin47/status/1927027406709137553?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a> arrives at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, alongside <a href="https://twitter.com/VP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@VP</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/SecDef?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecDef</a>. <a href="https://t.co/QxZtoOizEW">pic.twitter.com/QxZtoOizEW</a>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1927024701437616232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">.<a href="https://twitter.com/SecVetAffairs?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecVetAffairs</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/DNIGabbard?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DNIGabbard</a>, and <a href="https://twitter.com/epaleezeldin?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@epaleezeldin</a> — all military veterans — arrive at Arlington National Cemetery alongside <a href="https://twitter.com/SecretaryTurner?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecretaryTurner</a>, who served the military in special projects, including by helping transition veterans into civilian life. <a href="https://t.co/pogzdKrbQp">pic.twitter.com/pogzdKrbQp</a>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1927023666518171789?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥.Memorial Day ceremony at Tomb of the Unknown Soldier 

<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">&quot;I&#39;m not happy with what Putin&#39;s doing. He&#39;s killing a lot of people. I don&#39;t know what the hell happened to Putin... I don&#39;t like what Putin is doing, not even a little bit. He&#39;s killing people. Something happened to this guy. And I don&#39;t like it.&quot; -- President Trump <a href="https://t.co/KWZK1Xq6Wo">pic.twitter.com/KWZK1Xq6Wo</a>&mdash; Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) <a href="https://twitter.com/HowardMortman/status/1926771596439519717?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 25, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><a href="https://t.co/qjmxgOb4Mt">pic.twitter.com/qjmxgOb4Mt</a>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1926803020370579753?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥Trump makes wild new statement on Russian leader Vladimir Putin

&nbsp;JACKSON COUNTY—Law enforcement are investigating a Nebraska man on multiple allegations after a traffic stop.

Just before 2:30p.m. May 23, a sheriff's deputy&nbsp;conducted a traffic stop on a Subaru Forester for a traffic infraction on U.S. 75 Highway near 126th&nbsp;Road, according to Sheriff Tim Morse.

&nbsp; After the traffic stop was completed, the driver, Michael Glebavicius, 55, of Omaha, Nebraska, was arrested following a search of the vehicle. During the search, methamphetamine, marijuana and numerous items of drug paraphernalia were located.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Glebavicius was&nbsp;booked into the Jackson County Jail on requested charges of possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia and criminal carrying of a weapon.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1747947275336.png" alt="Glebavicius" />
 <figcaption>Glebavicius</figcaption>
 </figure>&nbsp;JACKSON COUNTY—Law enforcement are investigating a Nebraska man on multiple allegations after a traffic stop.Just before 2:30p.m. May 23, a sheriff's deputy&nbsp;conducted a traffic stop on a Subaru Forester for a traffic infraction on U.S. 75 Highway near 126th&nbsp;Road, according to Sheriff Tim Morse.&nbsp; After the traffic stop was completed, the driver, Michael Glebavicius, 55, of Omaha, Nebraska, was arrested following a search of the vehicle. During the search, methamphetamine, marijuana and numerous items of drug paraphernalia were located.&nbsp;&nbsp;Glebavicius was&nbsp;booked into the Jackson County Jail on requested charges of possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia and criminal carrying of a weapon.

Sheriff: Man jailed for weapons violation, transporting meth in Kansas

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jacob-fischler/">Jacob Fischler</a>

The massive tax and spending bill passed by U.S. House Republicans would likely result in 3.2 million people losing food assistance benefits, and saddle states with around $14 billion a year in costs, according to a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Democrats have argued the bill, which&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-republicans-push-through-massive-tax-and-spending-bill-slashing-medicaid" target="_blank">the House passed</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025145" target="_blank">215-214</a>&nbsp;early Thursday without any Democrats in support, would cut programs for the needy to fund tax breaks for high earners.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-05/Klobuchar-Craig-Letter-SNAP_5-22-25.pdf" target="_blank">CBO document, issued late Thursday,&nbsp;</a>responded to a request to the office from the top Democrats on the Senate and House Agriculture committees, Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Angie Craig, both of Minnesota, and somewhat bolsters that claim. The panels oversee federal food aid programs.

“This report is truly devastating,” Craig said in a Friday statement to States Newsroom. “As a mother and someone who at times relied on food assistance as a child, these numbers are heartbreaking. It is infuriating that Republicans in Congress are willing to make our children go hungry so they can give tax breaks to the already rich.”

A provision in the bill to tighten work requirements, including by excluding single parents of children older than 6 and by raising the age of adults to whom the work requirements apply, of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, would result in 3.2 million people losing access to the program in an average month, the CBO report said.

Of those, 1.4 million would be people who currently have a state waiver from work requirements that would be disallowed under the bill and 800,000 would be adults who live with children 7 or older, the report said.

In a Friday statement, Ben Nichols, a spokesman for the House Agriculture Committee led by Pennsylvania Republican Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson, said the proposed change would be more fair to the people SNAP is supposed to help and noted the program is the only state-administered entitlement program that is paid fully by the federal government.

“No one who is able-bodied and working, volunteering, or training for 20 hours a week will lose benefits,” Nichols wrote.

Republicans want to use the legislative package to extend the 2017 tax law and its cuts, increase spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, overhaul American energy production, restructure higher education aid and cut spending.

The cost-share changes, which would require states for the first time to pay for a portion of SNAP benefits, would also limit participation and add a massive line item to state budgets, according to the CBO.

Starting in 2028, states would be responsible for paying 5% to 25% of SNAP benefits, with a state’s share rising with its payment error rate. The federal government currently pays for all SNAP benefits.

Under the House bill, which will likely undergo substantial changes as the Senate considers it in the coming weeks, states collectively would be responsible for just less than $100 billion from 2028 to 2034, about $14 billion per year.

States would respond in a variety of ways, CBO Director Phillip Swagel wrote, including potentially dropping out of the program.

“CBO expects that some states would maintain current benefits and eligibility and others would modify benefits or eligibility or possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs,” he wrote.

The office took a “probabilistic approach to account for a range of possible outcomes” to determine what the effect on households would be and estimated that 1.3 million people would lose benefits because of state responses to the new cost-share.

Nichols, with the House Agriculture Committee, disputed the CBO’s estimate regarding the cost share change. The lowest state cost-share of 5% would be available for states with error rates below 6%. Every state has hit that mark at some point in the last decade, he said.

With that favorable of a cost-share, the Republican committee members did not believe states would drop out of the program, he added.

“We reject the hypothetical assumption that some states may not chip into 5 percent of a supplemental nutrition program,” Nichols wrote. “Every state is capable of paying for a portion SNAP… Federal policy should encourage states to administer the SNAP program more efficiently and effectively, and this bill does just that.”&nbsp;

CBO’s forecasters determined the impacts of the work requirements and cost-share provisions separately, meaning some people potentially losing benefits could have been counted in both categories.

The House vote Thursday sent the measure to the Senate, where the debate over SNAP benefits may fall along similar party lines.

Republicans who hold control in that chamber are planning to employ the budget reconciliation process, which allows them to skirt the Senate’s usual 60-vote requirement for legislation.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/7/1689674819900.png" alt="Photo USDA" />
 <figcaption>Photo USDA</figcaption>
 </figure>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jacob-fischler/">Jacob Fischler</a>The massive tax and spending bill passed by U.S. House Republicans would likely result in 3.2 million people losing food assistance benefits, and saddle states with around $14 billion a year in costs, according to a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.Democrats have argued the bill, which&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-republicans-push-through-massive-tax-and-spending-bill-slashing-medicaid" target="_blank">the House passed</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025145" target="_blank">215-214</a>&nbsp;early Thursday without any Democrats in support, would cut programs for the needy to fund tax breaks for high earners.The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-05/Klobuchar-Craig-Letter-SNAP_5-22-25.pdf" target="_blank">CBO document, issued late Thursday,&nbsp;</a>responded to a request to the office from the top Democrats on the Senate and House Agriculture committees, Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Angie Craig, both of Minnesota, and somewhat bolsters that claim. The panels oversee federal food aid programs.“This report is truly devastating,” Craig said in a Friday statement to States Newsroom. “As a mother and someone who at times relied on food assistance as a child, these numbers are heartbreaking. It is infuriating that Republicans in Congress are willing to make our children go hungry so they can give tax breaks to the already rich.”A provision in the bill to tighten work requirements, including by excluding single parents of children older than 6 and by raising the age of adults to whom the work requirements apply, of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, would result in 3.2 million people losing access to the program in an average month, the CBO report said.Of those, 1.4 million would be people who currently have a state waiver from work requirements that would be disallowed under the bill and 800,000 would be adults who live with children 7 or older, the report said.In a Friday statement, Ben Nichols, a spokesman for the House Agriculture Committee led by Pennsylvania Republican Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson, said the proposed change would be more fair to the people SNAP is supposed to help and noted the program is the only state-administered entitlement program that is paid fully by the federal government.“No one who is able-bodied and working, volunteering, or training for 20 hours a week will lose benefits,” Nichols wrote.Republicans want to use the legislative package to extend the 2017 tax law and its cuts, increase spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, overhaul American energy production, restructure higher education aid and cut spending.<h2>Toll on states</h2>The cost-share changes, which would require states for the first time to pay for a portion of SNAP benefits, would also limit participation and add a massive line item to state budgets, according to the CBO.Starting in 2028, states would be responsible for paying 5% to 25% of SNAP benefits, with a state’s share rising with its payment error rate. The federal government currently pays for all SNAP benefits.Under the House bill, which will likely undergo substantial changes as the Senate considers it in the coming weeks, states collectively would be responsible for just less than $100 billion from 2028 to 2034, about $14 billion per year.States would respond in a variety of ways, CBO Director Phillip Swagel wrote, including potentially dropping out of the program.“CBO expects that some states would maintain current benefits and eligibility and others would modify benefits or eligibility or possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs,” he wrote.The office took a “probabilistic approach to account for a range of possible outcomes” to determine what the effect on households would be and estimated that 1.3 million people would lose benefits because of state responses to the new cost-share.Nichols, with the House Agriculture Committee, disputed the CBO’s estimate regarding the cost share change. The lowest state cost-share of 5% would be available for states with error rates below 6%. Every state has hit that mark at some point in the last decade, he said.With that favorable of a cost-share, the Republican committee members did not believe states would drop out of the program, he added.“We reject the hypothetical assumption that some states may not chip into 5 percent of a supplemental nutrition program,” Nichols wrote. “Every state is capable of paying for a portion SNAP… Federal policy should encourage states to administer the SNAP program more efficiently and effectively, and this bill does just that.”&nbsp;CBO’s forecasters determined the impacts of the work requirements and cost-share provisions separately, meaning some people potentially losing benefits could have been counted in both categories.<h2>Move to the Senate</h2>The House vote Thursday sent the measure to the Senate, where the debate over SNAP benefits may fall along similar party lines.Republicans who hold control in that chamber are planning to employ the budget reconciliation process, which allows them to skirt the Senate’s usual 60-vote requirement for legislation.During the House Agriculture Committee’s debate over its portion of the legislation, Republicans on the panel said the work requirement and state cost-share measures were needed reforms to SNAP that would protect the program for those it was meant to serve, while limiting the costs associated with benefits to adults who were able and unwilling to work or in the country illegally.In a Friday statement, Sara Lasure, a spokeswoman for Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, also said the panel would seek reforms to the program but did not offer specifics.“The Senate Agriculture Committee is in the process of crafting its budget reconciliation package and will work as good stewards of taxpayer dollars to make commonsense reforms to SNAP that encourage employment,” she wrote in an email.Klobuchar, in a statement after House passage Thursday, blasted the House bill and indicated she would oppose efforts to cut SNAP benefits.“House Republicans are pulling the rug out from under millions of families by taking away federal assistance to put food on the table,” she said. “They’re doing that even as President Trump’s tariff taxes raise food prices by more than $200 for the average family, all to fund more tax breaks for the wealthy. That’s so very wrong —and we will fight against it in the Senate.”