WASHINGTON (AP) — A year after its&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-58d01ef8bd48e816d5f8761ffa84e3e8">sweeping gun rights ruling</a>, the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;agreed to decide whether judges are going too far in striking down restrictions on firearms.

The justices will hear the Biden administration's appeal of one such ruling that struck down as unconstitutional a federal law meant to keep guns away from people who have domestic violence restraining orders against them.

Arguments will take place in the fall in the first case in which the court could define the limits on new standards for evaluating gun laws that its conservative majority set out last June.

That decision in the case, which has come to be known as Bruen, has&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-mississippi-state-government-delaware-california-massachusetts-3983cecfd1107c263d5309ec0d80a966">upended gun laws across the country.</a>&nbsp;It's led to a rash of rulings invalidating some long-standing restrictions on firearms, but also produced confusion about what laws can survive.

Governments have to justify gun control laws by showing they are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in an opinion that was joined by the other five conservative justices. Until that ruling, judges could consider whether a law serves public interests such as enhancing public safety.

In the past year, judges also have struck down federal laws barring people from having guns if they&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-texas-donald-trump-gun-politics-indictments-8f33eb6f21597e6ee63272aa64d32520">have been charged with serious crimes</a>&nbsp;or&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-oklahoma-state-government-new-orleans-city-c79d6fedc97ba657d2cab17f59354a95">use marijuana</a>. Other rulings have called into question a federal ban on possessing guns with serial numbers removed,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/young-gun-buyers-ruling-9165143fcab00ea733c703e5572e0730">the prohibition on licensed federal firearms dealers selling handguns</a>&nbsp;to young adults under 21 and Delaware’s ban on the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/lawsuits-gun-politics-delaware-dover-39cc2a436ba0df094e9474ebd8d3d75d">possession of homemade “ghost guns.”</a>

Lower courts are also considering challenges to states’ bans on the sale of so-called assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The Supreme Court in May&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-illinois-gun-law-14bcad1bf2ee322b0517086755b8ff56">denied an emergency request</a>&nbsp;to put an Illinois law on hold while that court challenge plays out.

The case now before the court involves Zackey Rahimi, whose conviction on possessing guns while subject to a restraining order was thrown out by a panel of three Republican appointees on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Rahimi was involved in five shootings over two months in and around Arlington, Texas, U.S. Circuit Judge Cory Wilson noted. When police identified Rahimi as a suspect in the shootings and showed up at his home with a search warrant, Rahimi admitted both to having guns in the house and being subject to a domestic violence restraining order that prohibited gun possession, Wilson wrote.

But though “hardly a model citizen,” Rahimi did not lose his constitutional right to have guns, Wilson concluded. The law at issue could not be justified by looking to history, he wrote for a unanimous panel.

Wilson and Judge James Ho were nominated by President Donald Trump. The third judge, Edith Jones, was chosen by President Ronald Reagan.

The appeals court initially upheld the conviction, then reconsidered once the Supreme Court ruled in Bruen. At least one district court has upheld the law since the Bruen decision

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, cited an earlier high court decision involving gun bans for domestic violence convictions to urge the justices to take up the case. “More than a million acts of domestic violence occur in the United States every year, and the presence of a firearm increases the chance that violence will escalate to homicide,” Prelogar wrote.

On the day the court finished deciding the cases argued in recent months, the legal fight over a gun law was among six cases that the justices added to their agenda for the term that begins on the first Monday in October.

—a Biden administration appeal of a 5th Circuit ruling that could have far-reaching effects on the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory agencies. The appeals court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-new-orleans-government-and-politics-executive-branch-a6a6c0e83238d0e5e55aedd9eb0ab85f">threw out stiff financial penalties imposed on hedge fund manager George R. Jarkesy by the SEC</a>.

—a question about whether workers can pursue job discrimination claims under federal civil rights law when those workers are not demoted or docked pay. The case taken up by the court involve a sex discrimination claim by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/st-louis-sexual-misconduct-missouri-tigers-mens-basketball-crime-4b6259d5f0745c0534dc1637024329ec">a St. Louis police sergeant</a>&nbsp;who was transferred against her will.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A year after its&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-58d01ef8bd48e816d5f8761ffa84e3e8">sweeping gun rights ruling</a>, the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;agreed to decide whether judges are going too far in striking down restrictions on firearms.The justices will hear the Biden administration's appeal of one such ruling that struck down as unconstitutional a federal law meant to keep guns away from people who have domestic violence restraining orders against them.Arguments will take place in the fall in the first case in which the court could define the limits on new standards for evaluating gun laws that its conservative majority set out last June.That decision in the case, which has come to be known as Bruen, has&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-mississippi-state-government-delaware-california-massachusetts-3983cecfd1107c263d5309ec0d80a966">upended gun laws across the country.</a>&nbsp;It's led to a rash of rulings invalidating some long-standing restrictions on firearms, but also produced confusion about what laws can survive.Governments have to justify gun control laws by showing they are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in an opinion that was joined by the other five conservative justices. Until that ruling, judges could consider whether a law serves public interests such as enhancing public safety.In the past year, judges also have struck down federal laws barring people from having guns if they&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-texas-donald-trump-gun-politics-indictments-8f33eb6f21597e6ee63272aa64d32520">have been charged with serious crimes</a>&nbsp;or&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-oklahoma-state-government-new-orleans-city-c79d6fedc97ba657d2cab17f59354a95">use marijuana</a>. Other rulings have called into question a federal ban on possessing guns with serial numbers removed,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/young-gun-buyers-ruling-9165143fcab00ea733c703e5572e0730">the prohibition on licensed federal firearms dealers selling handguns</a>&nbsp;to young adults under 21 and Delaware’s ban on the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/lawsuits-gun-politics-delaware-dover-39cc2a436ba0df094e9474ebd8d3d75d">possession of homemade “ghost guns.”</a>Lower courts are also considering challenges to states’ bans on the sale of so-called assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The Supreme Court in May&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-illinois-gun-law-14bcad1bf2ee322b0517086755b8ff56">denied an emergency request</a>&nbsp;to put an Illinois law on hold while that court challenge plays out.The case now before the court involves Zackey Rahimi, whose conviction on possessing guns while subject to a restraining order was thrown out by a panel of three Republican appointees on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Rahimi was involved in five shootings over two months in and around Arlington, Texas, U.S. Circuit Judge Cory Wilson noted. When police identified Rahimi as a suspect in the shootings and showed up at his home with a search warrant, Rahimi admitted both to having guns in the house and being subject to a domestic violence restraining order that prohibited gun possession, Wilson wrote.But though “hardly a model citizen,” Rahimi did not lose his constitutional right to have guns, Wilson concluded. The law at issue could not be justified by looking to history, he wrote for a unanimous panel.Wilson and Judge James Ho were nominated by President Donald Trump. The third judge, Edith Jones, was chosen by President Ronald Reagan.The appeals court initially upheld the conviction, then reconsidered once the Supreme Court ruled in Bruen. At least one district court has upheld the law since the Bruen decisionSolicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, cited an earlier high court decision involving gun bans for domestic violence convictions to urge the justices to take up the case. “More than a million acts of domestic violence occur in the United States every year, and the presence of a firearm increases the chance that violence will escalate to homicide,” Prelogar wrote.On the day the court finished deciding the cases argued in recent months, the legal fight over a gun law was among six cases that the justices added to their agenda for the term that begins on the first Monday in October.The other cases include:—a Biden administration appeal of a 5th Circuit ruling that could have far-reaching effects on the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory agencies. The appeals court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-new-orleans-government-and-politics-executive-branch-a6a6c0e83238d0e5e55aedd9eb0ab85f">threw out stiff financial penalties imposed on hedge fund manager George R. Jarkesy by the SEC</a>.—a question about whether workers can pursue job discrimination claims under federal civil rights law when those workers are not demoted or docked pay. The case taken up by the court involve a sex discrimination claim by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/st-louis-sexual-misconduct-missouri-tigers-mens-basketball-crime-4b6259d5f0745c0534dc1637024329ec">a St. Louis police sergeant</a>&nbsp;who was transferred against her will.

Supreme Court will decide gun rights case on domestic violence

WASHINGTON&nbsp; — President Joe Biden vowed to push ahead with a new plan providing student loan relief for millions of borrowers, while blaming Republican “hypocrisy” for triggering Friday's&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-supreme-court-653c2e9c085863bdbf81f125f87669fa">Supreme Court decision</a>&nbsp;that wiped out his original effort.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf">Click here to read</a>&nbsp;the decision

(click below to watch the President discuss the plan)

Biden said his administration had already begun the process of working under the authority of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which he called "the best path that remains to provide&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-debt-forgiveness-supreme-court-2d6eec61822b9e7a89ff59453d2486a5">as many borrowers as possible</a>&nbsp;with debt relief.”

According to a statement from the White House,&nbsp;President Biden and his Administration&nbsp;have took two steps Friday afternoon aimed at providing debt relief for as many borrowers as possible, as fast as possible, and supporting student loan borrowers:

In addition, to protect the most vulnerable borrowers from the worst consequences of missed payments following the payment restart,&nbsp;the Department is instituting a 12-month “on-ramp” to repayment, running from October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024, so that financially vulnerable borrowers who miss monthly payments during this period are not considered delinquent, reported to credit bureaus, placed in default, or referred to debt collection agencies.

These actions reflect the President’s belief that an education beyond high school should be a ticket to the middle class. It also builds on the unprecedented steps President Biden and his Administration have taken to make college more affordable for working and middle-class families and make federal student loans more manageable. The Biden-Harris Administration has:

Debt Relief for As Many Borrowers as Possible, as Fast as Possible The President remains committed to providing relief to low- and middle-income borrowers. For too many Americans, a ticket to the middle-class remains out of reach because of unmanageable student loan debt. COVID-19 exacerbated that challenge – risking tens of millions of borrowers’ financial security and futures because of the economic harms brought on by a once-in-a-century pandemic. Today, the Department&nbsp;<a href="https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2023/negregpublichearingannouncement.pdf">initiated rulemaking</a>&nbsp;aimed at opening an alternative path to debt relief for as many borrowers as possible, using the Secretary of Education’s authority under the Higher Education Act. The Department issued a notice, which is the first step in the process of issuing new regulations under this so-called “negotiated rulemaking” process. The notice announces a virtual public hearing on July 18th and solicits written comments from stakeholders on topics to consider. Following the public hearing, the Department will finalize the issues to be addressed through rulemaking and begin the negotiated rulemaking sessions this fall. The Department will complete this rulemaking as quickly as possible.

Lowering Monthly Payments The Biden-Harris Administration today also finalized the most affordable repayment plan ever created, called the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan. This income-driven repayment plan will cut borrowers’ monthly payments in half, allow many borrowers to make $0 monthly payments, save all other borrowers at least $1,000 per year, and ensure borrowers don’t see their balances grow from unpaid interest. Specifically, the plan will:

All student borrowers in repayment will be eligible to enroll in the SAVE plan. They will be able to enroll later this summer, before any monthly payments are due. Borrowers who sign up or are already signed up for the current Revised Pay as You Earn (REPAYE) plan will be automatically enrolled in SAVE once the new plan is implemented. To learn more about the new SAVE plan, visit&nbsp;<a href="https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2021/idrfactsheetfinal.pdf">the Department of Education’s website.</a>

Ensuring Support for Borrowers Most at Risk To protect the most vulnerable borrowers, the Department is creating a temporary “on-ramp” to protect borrowers from the harshest consequences of late, missed, or partial payments for up to 12 months. While payments will be due and interest will accrue during this period, interest will not capitalize at the end of the on-ramp period. Additionally, borrowers will not be reported to credit bureaus, be considered in default, or referred to collection agencies for late, missed, or partial payments during the on-ramp period. Future monthly bills for borrowers not enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan will be automatically adjusted to reflect the accrued interest during those months. Borrowers who can pay should do so, but this on-ramp period gives borrowers who cannot make payments right away the necessary time to adjust, enabling them to ultimately make their monthly payments and meet their financial obligations on their loans. Borrowers do not need to take any action to qualify for this on-ramp.

WASHINGTON&nbsp; — President Joe Biden vowed to push ahead with a new plan providing student loan relief for millions of borrowers, while blaming Republican “hypocrisy” for triggering Friday's&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-supreme-court-653c2e9c085863bdbf81f125f87669fa">Supreme Court decision</a>&nbsp;that wiped out his original effort.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf">Click here to read</a>&nbsp;the decision(click below to watch the President discuss the plan)<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KCQAaoyrOgk?start=387" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>Biden said his administration had already begun the process of working under the authority of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which he called "the best path that remains to provide&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-debt-forgiveness-supreme-court-2d6eec61822b9e7a89ff59453d2486a5">as many borrowers as possible</a>&nbsp;with debt relief.”According to a statement from the White House,&nbsp;President Biden and his Administration&nbsp;have took two steps Friday afternoon aimed at providing debt relief for as many borrowers as possible, as fast as possible, and supporting student loan borrowers:<ul>
 <li>The Secretary of Education initiated a rulemaking process aimed at opening an alternative path to debt relief for as many working and middle-class borrowers as possible, using the Secretary’s authority under the Higher Education Act. &nbsp;</li><li>The Department of Education (Department) finalized the most affordable repayment plan ever created, ensuring that borrowers will be able to take advantage of this plan this summer—before loan payments are due.&nbsp;Many borrowers will not have to make monthly payments under this plan. Those that do will save more than $1,000 a year.</li>
 </ul>In addition, to protect the most vulnerable borrowers from the worst consequences of missed payments following the payment restart,&nbsp;the Department is instituting a 12-month “on-ramp” to repayment, running from October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024, so that financially vulnerable borrowers who miss monthly payments during this period are not considered delinquent, reported to credit bureaus, placed in default, or referred to debt collection agencies.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">The Biden-Harris Administration’s student debt relief program would have been good for the American economy. Republican elected officials who sued this Administration blocked all of it. <a href="https://t.co/rKWBqDq6fr">pic.twitter.com/rKWBqDq6fr</a>&mdash; The White House (@WhiteHouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1674961017283936258?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 1, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>These actions reflect the President’s belief that an education beyond high school should be a ticket to the middle class. It also builds on the unprecedented steps President Biden and his Administration have taken to make college more affordable for working and middle-class families and make federal student loans more manageable. The Biden-Harris Administration has:<ul>
 <li>Secured the largest increases to Pell Grants in a decade. &nbsp;</li><li>Fixed broken student loan programs such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness, so borrowers actually get the relief they deserve. &nbsp;</li><li>Approved more than $66 billion in loan cancellation for 2.2 million borrowers across the country, including public service workers and those who have been defrauded by their colleges. &nbsp;</li>
 </ul>Debt Relief for As Many Borrowers as Possible, as Fast as Possible The President remains committed to providing relief to low- and middle-income borrowers. For too many Americans, a ticket to the middle-class remains out of reach because of unmanageable student loan debt. COVID-19 exacerbated that challenge – risking tens of millions of borrowers’ financial security and futures because of the economic harms brought on by a once-in-a-century pandemic. Today, the Department&nbsp;<a href="https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2023/negregpublichearingannouncement.pdf">initiated rulemaking</a>&nbsp;aimed at opening an alternative path to debt relief for as many borrowers as possible, using the Secretary of Education’s authority under the Higher Education Act. The Department issued a notice, which is the first step in the process of issuing new regulations under this so-called “negotiated rulemaking” process. The notice announces a virtual public hearing on July 18th and solicits written comments from stakeholders on topics to consider. Following the public hearing, the Department will finalize the issues to be addressed through rulemaking and begin the negotiated rulemaking sessions this fall. The Department will complete this rulemaking as quickly as possible.Lowering Monthly Payments The Biden-Harris Administration today also finalized the most affordable repayment plan ever created, called the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan. This income-driven repayment plan will cut borrowers’ monthly payments in half, allow many borrowers to make $0 monthly payments, save all other borrowers at least $1,000 per year, and ensure borrowers don’t see their balances grow from unpaid interest. Specifically, the plan will:<ul>
 <li>For undergraduate loans, cut in half the amount that borrowers have to pay each month from 10% to 5% of discretionary income.</li><li>Raise the amount of income that is considered non-discretionary income and therefore is protected from repayment, guaranteeing that no borrower earning under 225% of the federal poverty level—about the annual equivalent of a $15 minimum wage for a single borrower—will have to make a monthly payment under this plan.</li><li>Forgive loan balances after 10 years of payments, instead of 20 years, for borrowers with original loan balances of $12,000 or less. The Department estimates that this reform will allow nearly all community college borrowers to be debt-free within 10 years.</li><li>Not charge borrowers with unpaid monthly interest, so that unlike other existing income-driven repayment plans, no borrower’s loan balance will grow as long as they make their monthly payments—even when that monthly payment is $0 because their income is low.</li>
 </ul>All student borrowers in repayment will be eligible to enroll in the SAVE plan. They will be able to enroll later this summer, before any monthly payments are due. Borrowers who sign up or are already signed up for the current Revised Pay as You Earn (REPAYE) plan will be automatically enrolled in SAVE once the new plan is implemented. To learn more about the new SAVE plan, visit&nbsp;<a href="https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2021/idrfactsheetfinal.pdf">the Department of Education’s website.</a>Ensuring Support for Borrowers Most at Risk To protect the most vulnerable borrowers, the Department is creating a temporary “on-ramp” to protect borrowers from the harshest consequences of late, missed, or partial payments for up to 12 months. While payments will be due and interest will accrue during this period, interest will not capitalize at the end of the on-ramp period. Additionally, borrowers will not be reported to credit bureaus, be considered in default, or referred to collection agencies for late, missed, or partial payments during the on-ramp period. Future monthly bills for borrowers not enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan will be automatically adjusted to reflect the accrued interest during those months. Borrowers who can pay should do so, but this on-ramp period gives borrowers who cannot make payments right away the necessary time to adjust, enabling them to ultimately make their monthly payments and meet their financial obligations on their loans. Borrowers do not need to take any action to qualify for this on-ramp.

🎥Details of new actions to provide debt relief for student loan borrowers

KANSAS CITY —A Kansas City man faces a charge of Animal Abuse, an E felony, in connection with a dog's abuse and death in October 2022, according to Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker.

Ryan R. Jackson, 30, faces Property Damage 1st Degree and Animal Abuse.

According to court records, in October 2022, Kansas City police were dispatched to a residence on a disturbance. Officers were told by a caller that the defendant had just told him that he had messed up the caller's home and harmed his dog, named Rom. 

Officers on the scene observed a white and grey bulldog in the roadway. The dog had numerous injuries and was bleeding from the mouth and face. The dog was unable to move. The dog later succumbed to his injuries. Inside the residence, officers found heavy damage. Kitchen cabinets were ripped out of the wall.

KC Pet Project responded to the scene of the dog's abuse and transported the injured animal to Blue Pearl Emergency Animal Hospital for treatment.

The animal abuses charges were filed in April 2023. An arrest warrant was signed June 22. The following day, Jackson was involved in a fatal shooting near 10th and Locust in Downtown Kansas City. Jackson faces charges of Murder 2nd Degree and Armed Criminal Action in that case and is being held without bond.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/7/1688215396434.png" alt="Jackson is being held without bond in Jackson County Detention Center" />
 <figcaption>Jackson is being held without bond in Jackson County Detention Center</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY —A Kansas City man faces a charge of Animal Abuse, an E felony, in connection with a dog's abuse and death in October 2022, according to Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker.Ryan R. Jackson, 30, faces Property Damage 1st Degree and Animal Abuse.According to court records, in October 2022, Kansas City police were dispatched to a residence on a disturbance. Officers were told by a caller that the defendant had just told him that he had messed up the caller's home and harmed his dog, named Rom. Officers on the scene observed a white and grey bulldog in the roadway. The dog had numerous injuries and was bleeding from the mouth and face. The dog was unable to move. The dog later succumbed to his injuries. Inside the residence, officers found heavy damage. Kitchen cabinets were ripped out of the wall.KC Pet Project responded to the scene of the dog's abuse and transported the injured animal to Blue Pearl Emergency Animal Hospital for treatment.The animal abuses charges were filed in April 2023. An arrest warrant was signed June 22. The following day, Jackson was involved in a fatal shooting near 10th and Locust in Downtown Kansas City. Jackson faces charges of Murder 2nd Degree and Armed Criminal Action in that case and is being held without bond.

Murder suspect also accused in deadly abuse of dog

SEDGWICK COUNTY —A man found guilty of murdering his twin brother and his sister-in-law has been sentenced for the crime.

District Judge Jeffrey Goering sentenced Luis Alvarado-Meraz, 33 of Wichita, to life without parole, according to the Sedgwick County District Attorney's office.

On January 14, 2015, Alvarado-Meraz shot his brother 24-year-old Manuel and Manuel’s wife 22-year-old Lucero Rodriquez.

 Alvarado-Meraz was found guilty of capital murder on October 5, 2018.

The delay in sentencing was the result of the filing of multiple post-trial motions which required days of evidentiary hearings over the course of several years. Ultimately, the defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied over four years after he was convicted at trial.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/6/1688071148693.png" alt="Alvarado-Meraz-photo Sedgwick Co." />
 <figcaption>Alvarado-Meraz-photo Sedgwick Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>SEDGWICK COUNTY —A man found guilty of murdering his twin brother and his sister-in-law has been sentenced for the crime.District Judge Jeffrey Goering sentenced Luis Alvarado-Meraz, 33 of Wichita, to life without parole, according to the Sedgwick County District Attorney's office.On January 14, 2015, Alvarado-Meraz shot his brother 24-year-old Manuel and Manuel’s wife 22-year-old Lucero Rodriquez. Alvarado-Meraz was found guilty of capital murder on October 5, 2018.The delay in sentencing was the result of the filing of multiple post-trial motions which required days of evidentiary hearings over the course of several years. Ultimately, the defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied over four years after he was convicted at trial.

Kan. man found guilty of murder in 2018 finally sentenced 

WASHINGTON (AP) — As a Black student who was raised by a single mother, Makia Green believes she benefited from a program that gave preference to students of color from economically disadvantaged backgrounds when she was admitted over a decade ago to the University of Rochester.

As a borrower who still owes just over $20,000 on her undergraduate student loans, she had been counting on President Joe Biden's promised debt relief to wipe nearly all of that away.

Now, the student loan cancellation plan has been&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-supreme-court-653c2e9c085863bdbf81f125f87669fa">dismantled by the U.S. Supreme Court</a>, which on Thursday&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-affirmative-action-college-race-f83d6318017ec9b9029b12ee2256e744">struck down affirmative action</a>&nbsp;in college admissions. Both policies disproportionately help Black students. To Green and many other people of color, the efforts to roll them back reflect a larger backlash to racial progress in higher education.

“I feel like working people have been through enough — I have been through enough,” said Green, a community organizer. “From a pandemic, an uprising, a recession, the cost of living price going up. I deserved some relief.”

The rulings could also have political consequences among a generation of young voters of color who took Biden at his word when he campaigned on canceling debt.

“Despite today’s upsetting ruling, we demand that the Biden Administration delivers on the promise of student loan debt relief,” said NAACP President Derrick Johnson, in a statement. “Education has long been regarded as a path toward generational wealth, economic liberation, and securing the American dream. Let’s be clear — student debt is killing that dream.”

The president's plan&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-biden-plan-d9c8e18774a744187c9af634bf4eb728">forgave up to $10,000</a>&nbsp;in federal student debt for borrowers, and doubled the debt relief to $20,000 for borrowers who also received Pell Grants. About half of the average debt held by Black and Hispanic borrowers would have been wiped out, according to the White House.

Six Republican-led states filed a legal challenge questioning whether the president, a Democrat, had authority to forgive the debt. On Friday, the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-supreme-court-653c2e9c085863bdbf81f125f87669fa">Supreme Court held</a>&nbsp;the administration needed Congress’ endorsement before undertaking so costly a program.

In the affirmative action cases, the court was considering the use of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-ketanji-brown-jackson-us-supreme-court-college-admissions-affirmative-action-196ab930c799bcdc8b2a4a220641dd48">race-conscious admissions policies</a>&nbsp;that many selective colleges have used for decades to help build diversity on their campuses. The cases were brought by a conservative activist who argues the Constitution forbids the use of race in college admissions.

Together, the cases are crushing to Black Americans, the Rev. Al Sharpton said.

“The reality is race plays a factor in admissions, from pre-K to post-doctorate, and institutions just saw their best tool for fairness outlawed,” Sharpton said.

On student loans, Sharpton said: “Generations of Black youth were sold a bill of goods that higher education was a pathway out of poverty – only to be saddled with crushing debt that never lets them see their dreams fully realized.”

Both cases focused on policies that address historic racial disparities in access to higher education, as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-covid-health-education-07bf5c4ff1928793f01e907a63cafa36">Black borrowers</a>&nbsp;tend to take on disproportionately more debt to afford college, said Dominique Baker, an education policy professor at Southern Methodist University.

Backlash to racial progress tends to follow periods of social change and advancement, Baker said. In a study published in 2019, Baker found states were more likely to adopt bans on affirmative action when white enrollment at public flagship universities dropped.

“These are policy tools that have an explicit aim around reducing the power of white supremacy,” Baker said. The two court challenges, she said, can be seen “as linked backlash to two attempts towards racial justice.”

Green, who grew up in a low-income household in Harlem, New York, graduated from Rochester with about $40,000 in federal loan debt. Some of that was erased under a public service forgiveness program when she completed two terms with Americorps, and she whittled it down further with monthly installments until the government&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loans-debt-forgiveness-supreme-court-default-0eb5a2bdb0ed4cfbd9663f822dfd457c">paused repayment</a>&nbsp;due to the pandemic. Payments will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-payment-pause-end-642276f724b30890669a60ea2c0bbfd5">restart in September</a>.

Green said she sees both court cases as connected to conservative&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-race-ban-schools-4c4df1728f5265eee3684268035570c2">attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion programs</a>. Critics say opposition to such programs is rooted in questions of fairness and in white grievances over the advancement of nonwhite people.

“This is white supremacy at work,” Green said. “This is a long tactic of conservative, white supremacist-leaning groups to use education and limit Black people’s access to education, as a way to further control and oppress us.”

In the 1960s and 1970s, many colleges developed affirmative action plans to address the fact that many predominantly white schools struggled to attract people from historically disadvantaged and underrepresented communities. Policies were also created to promote greater inclusion of women.

Since the late 1970s, the Supreme Court had three times&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-education-higher-8bd85791095f617f6fa66c1552670f3d">upheld affirmative action</a>&nbsp;in college admissions on grounds that institutions have a compelling interest to address past discrimination that shut nonwhite students out of higher learning. Justices had also agreed with arguments that more diverse student bodies promoted cross-racial understanding.

Some students and advocates worried about how the ruling would affect diversity on campuses.

Tarina Ahuja, a rising senior at Harvard College, said being part of a diverse student body has been a crucial part of her undergraduate experience. She recalled classes where students discussed their lived experiences on topics such as police violence, colonialism and labor movements — discussions that would have fallen flat without a diverse range of student perspectives.

In anticipation of a ruling against race-conscious admissions, some colleges have been&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-affirmative-action-college-admissions-1d37af28939a533551cff45fa577ceb0">considering adding more essays</a>&nbsp;to get a better picture of an applicant’s background — an approach seemingly&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/college-admissions-affirmative-action-race-0ec3f355ea77828d9a7aa07fa1b2ebde">endorsed by Thursday's Supreme Court ruling</a>. Others have been planning to boost recruiting in racially diverse areas. But in states that have already banned affirmative action, similar efforts at selective colleges have&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-affirmative-action-diversity-5551cdb2b7206cd9112433e858be4d59">largely failed to maintain diversity gains</a>.

Jonathan Loc, a graduate student at Harvard who helped organize teach-ins in support of affirmative action, said that for students of color, it's impossible to speak about their lives without mentioning race, whether through hardships faced or simply their pride in their cultural heritage.

“I grew up as the son of refugees in a low-income community and a single-parent family burdened with the model minority myth,” he said. “But I think that that kind of narrative also helps me to be an Asian American focused on racial justice, focused on making sure that everyone who has a unique story related to their racial background or any background has that story heard.”

It will be important for colleges to find ways to show they see the students as more than a number on paper, said Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

“We need the schools to say, 'Look, the court says we can’t consider race, but we still see you,'” said Hewitt, whose organization defended affirmative action before the Supreme Court in October.

The Associated Press education team receives support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2019/8/1566222092492.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — As a Black student who was raised by a single mother, Makia Green believes she benefited from a program that gave preference to students of color from economically disadvantaged backgrounds when she was admitted over a decade ago to the University of Rochester.As a borrower who still owes just over $20,000 on her undergraduate student loans, she had been counting on President Joe Biden's promised debt relief to wipe nearly all of that away.Now, the student loan cancellation plan has been&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-supreme-court-653c2e9c085863bdbf81f125f87669fa">dismantled by the U.S. Supreme Court</a>, which on Thursday&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-affirmative-action-college-race-f83d6318017ec9b9029b12ee2256e744">struck down affirmative action</a>&nbsp;in college admissions. Both policies disproportionately help Black students. To Green and many other people of color, the efforts to roll them back reflect a larger backlash to racial progress in higher education.“I feel like working people have been through enough — I have been through enough,” said Green, a community organizer. “From a pandemic, an uprising, a recession, the cost of living price going up. I deserved some relief.”The rulings could also have political consequences among a generation of young voters of color who took Biden at his word when he campaigned on canceling debt.“Despite today’s upsetting ruling, we demand that the Biden Administration delivers on the promise of student loan debt relief,” said NAACP President Derrick Johnson, in a statement. “Education has long been regarded as a path toward generational wealth, economic liberation, and securing the American dream. Let’s be clear — student debt is killing that dream.”The president's plan&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-biden-plan-d9c8e18774a744187c9af634bf4eb728">forgave up to $10,000</a>&nbsp;in federal student debt for borrowers, and doubled the debt relief to $20,000 for borrowers who also received Pell Grants. About half of the average debt held by Black and Hispanic borrowers would have been wiped out, according to the White House.Six Republican-led states filed a legal challenge questioning whether the president, a Democrat, had authority to forgive the debt. On Friday, the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-supreme-court-653c2e9c085863bdbf81f125f87669fa">Supreme Court held</a>&nbsp;the administration needed Congress’ endorsement before undertaking so costly a program.In the affirmative action cases, the court was considering the use of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-ketanji-brown-jackson-us-supreme-court-college-admissions-affirmative-action-196ab930c799bcdc8b2a4a220641dd48">race-conscious admissions policies</a>&nbsp;that many selective colleges have used for decades to help build diversity on their campuses. The cases were brought by a conservative activist who argues the Constitution forbids the use of race in college admissions.Together, the cases are crushing to Black Americans, the Rev. Al Sharpton said.“The reality is race plays a factor in admissions, from pre-K to post-doctorate, and institutions just saw their best tool for fairness outlawed,” Sharpton said.On student loans, Sharpton said: “Generations of Black youth were sold a bill of goods that higher education was a pathway out of poverty – only to be saddled with crushing debt that never lets them see their dreams fully realized.”Both cases focused on policies that address historic racial disparities in access to higher education, as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-covid-health-education-07bf5c4ff1928793f01e907a63cafa36">Black borrowers</a>&nbsp;tend to take on disproportionately more debt to afford college, said Dominique Baker, an education policy professor at Southern Methodist University.Backlash to racial progress tends to follow periods of social change and advancement, Baker said. In a study published in 2019, Baker found states were more likely to adopt bans on affirmative action when white enrollment at public flagship universities dropped.“These are policy tools that have an explicit aim around reducing the power of white supremacy,” Baker said. The two court challenges, she said, can be seen “as linked backlash to two attempts towards racial justice.”Green, who grew up in a low-income household in Harlem, New York, graduated from Rochester with about $40,000 in federal loan debt. Some of that was erased under a public service forgiveness program when she completed two terms with Americorps, and she whittled it down further with monthly installments until the government&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loans-debt-forgiveness-supreme-court-default-0eb5a2bdb0ed4cfbd9663f822dfd457c">paused repayment</a>&nbsp;due to the pandemic. Payments will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-payment-pause-end-642276f724b30890669a60ea2c0bbfd5">restart in September</a>.Green said she sees both court cases as connected to conservative&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-race-ban-schools-4c4df1728f5265eee3684268035570c2">attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion programs</a>. Critics say opposition to such programs is rooted in questions of fairness and in white grievances over the advancement of nonwhite people.“This is white supremacy at work,” Green said. “This is a long tactic of conservative, white supremacist-leaning groups to use education and limit Black people’s access to education, as a way to further control and oppress us.”In the 1960s and 1970s, many colleges developed affirmative action plans to address the fact that many predominantly white schools struggled to attract people from historically disadvantaged and underrepresented communities. Policies were also created to promote greater inclusion of women.Since the late 1970s, the Supreme Court had three times&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-education-higher-8bd85791095f617f6fa66c1552670f3d">upheld affirmative action</a>&nbsp;in college admissions on grounds that institutions have a compelling interest to address past discrimination that shut nonwhite students out of higher learning. Justices had also agreed with arguments that more diverse student bodies promoted cross-racial understanding.Some students and advocates worried about how the ruling would affect diversity on campuses.Tarina Ahuja, a rising senior at Harvard College, said being part of a diverse student body has been a crucial part of her undergraduate experience. She recalled classes where students discussed their lived experiences on topics such as police violence, colonialism and labor movements — discussions that would have fallen flat without a diverse range of student perspectives.In anticipation of a ruling against race-conscious admissions, some colleges have been&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-affirmative-action-college-admissions-1d37af28939a533551cff45fa577ceb0">considering adding more essays</a>&nbsp;to get a better picture of an applicant’s background — an approach seemingly&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/college-admissions-affirmative-action-race-0ec3f355ea77828d9a7aa07fa1b2ebde">endorsed by Thursday's Supreme Court ruling</a>. Others have been planning to boost recruiting in racially diverse areas. But in states that have already banned affirmative action, similar efforts at selective colleges have&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-affirmative-action-diversity-5551cdb2b7206cd9112433e858be4d59">largely failed to maintain diversity gains</a>.Jonathan Loc, a graduate student at Harvard who helped organize teach-ins in support of affirmative action, said that for students of color, it's impossible to speak about their lives without mentioning race, whether through hardships faced or simply their pride in their cultural heritage.“I grew up as the son of refugees in a low-income community and a single-parent family burdened with the model minority myth,” he said. “But I think that that kind of narrative also helps me to be an Asian American focused on racial justice, focused on making sure that everyone who has a unique story related to their racial background or any background has that story heard.”It will be important for colleges to find ways to show they see the students as more than a number on paper, said Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.“We need the schools to say, 'Look, the court says we can’t consider race, but we still see you,'” said Hewitt, whose organization defended affirmative action before the Supreme Court in October.___The Associated Press education team receives support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The AP is solely responsible for all content.___

In student loan, affirmative action rulings, advocates fear losses for racial equality

By ANNELISE HANSHAW <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/01/30/open-enrollment-missouri-school-choice/">Missouri Independent</a>

At the center of the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/06/30/u-s-supreme-court-rules-against-biden-administration-student-loan-debt-relief-plan/">U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness</a>&nbsp;program on Friday was a little-known Missouri nonprofit that goes by MOHELA.

Based in St. Louis, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority is a quasi-governmental entity created by state lawmakers in 1981 to service student loans.

And when former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt went looking for legal standing in order to bring a lawsuit challenging the president’s program, he relied on the relationship between the state and MOHELA — even though the company wanted nothing to do with the lawsuit.

On Friday, the six conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Schmitt that, despite the company’s reluctance, MOHELA gave Missouri standing to sue. The court then struck down the program, with Chief Justice John Roberts accusing the executive branch of a power grab over the legislature.

“Today, we have concluded that an instrumentality created by Missouri, governed by Missouri, and answerable to Missouri is indeed part of Missouri; that the words ‘waive or modify’ do not mean ‘completely rewrite;’ and that our precedent — old and new — requires that Congress speak clearly before a Department Secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy,”&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf">Roberts wrote</a>.

The ruling affects more than 777,000 Missourians with federal student loans who would have received $10,000-$20,000 of relief under the proposal.

In addition to Schmitt, five other attorneys general from Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and South Carolina filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, seeking to bar the Secretary of Education from providing student loan relief.&nbsp;

<a target="_blank" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-506/251435/20230104222942852_22-506tsUnitedStates.pdf">The attorneys general argued&nbsp;</a>&nbsp;the secretary didn’t have authority and the forgiveness program would hurt state tax revenue.

The Supreme Court had to decide whether Missouri’s attorney general could sue on behalf of MOHELA before determining the validity of the loan relief.

The district-court judge dismissed the case, saying MOHELA can represent itself in litigation. But the Supreme Court reversed that decision, finding that MOHELA is an “instrumentality of Missouri.”

“The secretary’s plan will cut MOHELA’s revenues, impairing its efforts to aid Missouri college students. This acknowledged harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself,” Roberts wrote.

Some predict that debt cancellation would increase MOHELA’s revenue.&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/RI_Flawed-Claims-of-Legal-Standing-in-Biden-v-Nebraska_brief_202305.pdf">Projections from the Roosevelt Institute</a>&nbsp;show a steep increase as MOHELA takes over federal loans dropped by other servicers and is paid for each cancellation.

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, said MOHELA qualifies as a third party, not an arm of the government. Thus, Missouri had no standing to bring the lawsuit, she argued.&nbsp;

“If MOHELA had brought this suit, we would have had to resolve it, however hot or divisive. But Missouri? In adjudicating Missouri’s claim, the majority reaches out to decide a matter it has no business deciding. It blows through a constitutional guardrail intended to keep courts acting like courts,” Kagan wrote.

Although MOHELA is named 85 times in the court’s opinion, the nonprofit’s employees were opposed to the loan servicer’s inclusion, as recently revealed by the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://protectborrowers.org/internal-mohela-emails-press-release/">Student Borrower Protection Center</a>.

This month, the SBPC&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://protectborrowers.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SBPC-SLR-10-19-2022-Internal-E-Mails-z_Redacted.pdf">released internal MOHELA emails</a>&nbsp;it obtained through Missouri’s Sunshine Law showing employees discussing the case, with some confused at the organization’s inclusion in the lawsuit.

“The MO state AG needed to claim that our borrowers were harmed for standing, so they’re making us look bad by filing it not only with MO on it, but especially bad because they filed it in MO,” another employee wrote.

In October, U.S. Rep. Cori Bush sent a letter to MOHELA’s executive director Scott Giles and asked for the company’s stance on the attorney general’s lawsuit and accused MOHELA of being involved.&nbsp;

MOHELA had been largely silent up to that point.

“​​In Missouri alone, your efforts to halt cancellation could rob Missouri families — particularly Black and brown families who are disproportionately impacted by the student debt crisis — of more than $12.7 billion in life-changing economic relief,” Bush wrote.

MOHELA responded to Bush’s letter by distancing itself from the litigation. It informed the congresswoman that it was not involved in the decision to file the federal case.

“MOHELA has not had, and does not have, a contractual relationship or agreement with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office on any topic including as to student debt relief. The only communications between MOHELA and that office as it relates to student debt relief, is that the office recently filed a series of sunshine law requests on MOHELA seeking copies of documents relative to MOHELA’s federal loan servicing contract,” the company wrote in a letter to Bush.&nbsp;

<a target="_blank" href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.moed.198213/gov.uscourts.moed.198213.1.0_1.pdf">Attorneys argued</a>&nbsp;that loan cancellations would deprive MOHELA from the interest it would otherwise receive. Bush asked the organization about its capacity to serve as the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program servicer.

MOHELA took over the PSLF program July 1, 2022,&nbsp; after the former servicer resigned. These loans are not the Federal Student Aid contested by the attorneys general and are actively being forgiven.

MOHELA said it had “available funds in excess of operating expenses” with its reserves dedicated to student financial aid.

“We are committed to meeting the expectations and requirements as directed and administered by Federal Student Aid,” it said.

Federal student loan relief isn’t new. The secretary of education has paused student loan payments during national emergencies historically through the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, or HEROES Act.

In March 2020, then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos chose to use this precedent to stop payments and the accrual of interest during the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As federal employees in the Biden Administration looked toward the resumption of loan payments, they learned that Americans were at a higher risk of delinquency and faced economic pressures,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-506/251435/20230104222942852_22-506tsUnitedStates.pdf">the secretary of education said in litigation.</a>.

The Department of Education decided that $10,000 in relief, and $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients, would keep delinquency rates at or below pre-pandemic levels.

The secretary of education was planning to use the HEROES Act to forgive the payments, but Friday’s Supreme Court decision found that would be beyond the scope of the act. The secretary said he is allowed to “modify” the HEROES Act, but Roberts wrote that the widespread student-loan forgiveness was beyond a simple edit.

Schmitt, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in November,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://twitter.com/Eric_Schmitt/status/1674791643000754179">wrote on Twitter</a>&nbsp;he was “proud to have brought this case.”

“Working folks who paid off their loans or took another path shouldn’t have to pay for the unpaid loans of the tenured college professor,” he said.

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas said on Twitter that the ruling showed a commitment to inequality.

“On eliminating student loan relief, the Supreme Court again shows its activist stripes,” he wrote,&nbsp;“working overtime to protect the wealthy, erase opportunity for the poor, and to build permanent inequality, harming the chance for millions to build their lives free of burdensome debt.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/1/1673377040107.png" alt="White House image" />
 <figcaption>White House image</figcaption>
 </figure>By ANNELISE HANSHAW <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/01/30/open-enrollment-missouri-school-choice/">Missouri Independent</a>At the center of the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/06/30/u-s-supreme-court-rules-against-biden-administration-student-loan-debt-relief-plan/">U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness</a>&nbsp;program on Friday was a little-known Missouri nonprofit that goes by MOHELA.Based in St. Louis, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority is a quasi-governmental entity created by state lawmakers in 1981 to service student loans.And when former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt went looking for legal standing in order to bring a lawsuit challenging the president’s program, he relied on the relationship between the state and MOHELA — even though the company wanted nothing to do with the lawsuit.On Friday, the six conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Schmitt that, despite the company’s reluctance, MOHELA gave Missouri standing to sue. The court then struck down the program, with Chief Justice John Roberts accusing the executive branch of a power grab over the legislature.“Today, we have concluded that an instrumentality created by Missouri, governed by Missouri, and answerable to Missouri is indeed part of Missouri; that the words ‘waive or modify’ do not mean ‘completely rewrite;’ and that our precedent — old and new — requires that Congress speak clearly before a Department Secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy,”&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf">Roberts wrote</a>.The ruling affects more than 777,000 Missourians with federal student loans who would have received $10,000-$20,000 of relief under the proposal.In addition to Schmitt, five other attorneys general from Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and South Carolina filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, seeking to bar the Secretary of Education from providing student loan relief.&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-506/251435/20230104222942852_22-506tsUnitedStates.pdf">The attorneys general argued&nbsp;</a>&nbsp;the secretary didn’t have authority and the forgiveness program would hurt state tax revenue.The Supreme Court had to decide whether Missouri’s attorney general could sue on behalf of MOHELA before determining the validity of the loan relief.The district-court judge dismissed the case, saying MOHELA can represent itself in litigation. But the Supreme Court reversed that decision, finding that MOHELA is an “instrumentality of Missouri.”“The secretary’s plan will cut MOHELA’s revenues, impairing its efforts to aid Missouri college students. This acknowledged harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself,” Roberts wrote.Some predict that debt cancellation would increase MOHELA’s revenue.&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/RI_Flawed-Claims-of-Legal-Standing-in-Biden-v-Nebraska_brief_202305.pdf">Projections from the Roosevelt Institute</a>&nbsp;show a steep increase as MOHELA takes over federal loans dropped by other servicers and is paid for each cancellation.The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, said MOHELA qualifies as a third party, not an arm of the government. Thus, Missouri had no standing to bring the lawsuit, she argued.&nbsp;“If MOHELA had brought this suit, we would have had to resolve it, however hot or divisive. But Missouri? In adjudicating Missouri’s claim, the majority reaches out to decide a matter it has no business deciding. It blows through a constitutional guardrail intended to keep courts acting like courts,” Kagan wrote.Although MOHELA is named 85 times in the court’s opinion, the nonprofit’s employees were opposed to the loan servicer’s inclusion, as recently revealed by the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://protectborrowers.org/internal-mohela-emails-press-release/">Student Borrower Protection Center</a>.This month, the SBPC&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://protectborrowers.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SBPC-SLR-10-19-2022-Internal-E-Mails-z_Redacted.pdf">released internal MOHELA emails</a>&nbsp;it obtained through Missouri’s Sunshine Law showing employees discussing the case, with some confused at the organization’s inclusion in the lawsuit.“Are we the bad guys?” one asked.“The MO state AG needed to claim that our borrowers were harmed for standing, so they’re making us look bad by filing it not only with MO on it, but especially bad because they filed it in MO,” another employee wrote.In October, U.S. Rep. Cori Bush sent a letter to MOHELA’s executive director Scott Giles and asked for the company’s stance on the attorney general’s lawsuit and accused MOHELA of being involved.&nbsp;MOHELA had been largely silent up to that point.“​​In Missouri alone, your efforts to halt cancellation could rob Missouri families — particularly Black and brown families who are disproportionately impacted by the student debt crisis — of more than $12.7 billion in life-changing economic relief,” Bush wrote.MOHELA responded to Bush’s letter by distancing itself from the litigation. It informed the congresswoman that it was not involved in the decision to file the federal case.“MOHELA has not had, and does not have, a contractual relationship or agreement with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office on any topic including as to student debt relief. The only communications between MOHELA and that office as it relates to student debt relief, is that the office recently filed a series of sunshine law requests on MOHELA seeking copies of documents relative to MOHELA’s federal loan servicing contract,” the company wrote in a letter to Bush.&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.moed.198213/gov.uscourts.moed.198213.1.0_1.pdf">Attorneys argued</a>&nbsp;that loan cancellations would deprive MOHELA from the interest it would otherwise receive. Bush asked the organization about its capacity to serve as the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program servicer.MOHELA took over the PSLF program July 1, 2022,&nbsp; after the former servicer resigned. These loans are not the Federal Student Aid contested by the attorneys general and are actively being forgiven.MOHELA said it had “available funds in excess of operating expenses” with its reserves dedicated to student financial aid.“We are committed to meeting the expectations and requirements as directed and administered by Federal Student Aid,” it said.Federal student loan relief isn’t new. The secretary of education has paused student loan payments during national emergencies historically through the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, or HEROES Act.In March 2020, then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos chose to use this precedent to stop payments and the accrual of interest during the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.As federal employees in the Biden Administration looked toward the resumption of loan payments, they learned that Americans were at a higher risk of delinquency and faced economic pressures,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-506/251435/20230104222942852_22-506tsUnitedStates.pdf">the secretary of education said in litigation.</a>.The Department of Education decided that $10,000 in relief, and $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients, would keep delinquency rates at or below pre-pandemic levels.The secretary of education was planning to use the HEROES Act to forgive the payments, but Friday’s Supreme Court decision found that would be beyond the scope of the act. The secretary said he is allowed to “modify” the HEROES Act, but Roberts wrote that the widespread student-loan forgiveness was beyond a simple edit.Schmitt, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in November,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://twitter.com/Eric_Schmitt/status/1674791643000754179">wrote on Twitter</a>&nbsp;he was “proud to have brought this case.”“Working folks who paid off their loans or took another path shouldn’t have to pay for the unpaid loans of the tenured college professor,” he said.Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas said on Twitter that the ruling showed a commitment to inequality.“On eliminating student loan relief, the Supreme Court again shows its activist stripes,” he wrote,&nbsp;“working overtime to protect the wealthy, erase opportunity for the poor, and to build permanent inequality, harming the chance for millions to build their lives free of burdensome debt.”

Company played central role in downfall of Biden loan forgiveness program

PAWNEE COUNTY—A Kansas man accused of child sex crimes appeared in Pawnee County District court Wednesday.

Shelby Lee Starr, 48 of Great Bend, appeared for an evidentiary Preliminary Hearing on a single count of Aggravated Indecent Liberties; lewd fondling, of a child under the age of 14, according to Pawnee County Attorney Doug McNett.

The alleged incident was reported by a mandatory reporter to the Kansas Department of Children and Families on February 17, 2023, and was additionally investigated by the Larned Police Department.&nbsp;The alleged acts occurred at separate private residences in Larned sometime between 2016 and the Summer of 2017.

&nbsp;Magistrate Judge Julie Cowell found the State presented sufficient evidence to support two separate sexual offenses and bound the Starr over to the higher court on two counts of Aggravated Indecent Liberties. Arraignment has been scheduled for October 26, 2023.&nbsp;

Starr was arrested in Barton County on April 1, 2023, without incident. He has been in the custody of the Pawnee County Sheriff since his arrest. Bond is currently set at $100,000 cash or surety.

He has been registered as a sex offender since 2001 for child sex crime convictions in Georgia in 1998, according to the Sex Offender Registry.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/6/1688048000741.png" alt="Starr-photo Pawnee Co." />
 <figcaption>Starr-photo Pawnee Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>PAWNEE COUNTY—A Kansas man accused of child sex crimes appeared in Pawnee County District court Wednesday.Shelby Lee Starr, 48 of Great Bend, appeared for an evidentiary Preliminary Hearing on a single count of Aggravated Indecent Liberties; lewd fondling, of a child under the age of 14, according to Pawnee County Attorney Doug McNett.The alleged incident was reported by a mandatory reporter to the Kansas Department of Children and Families on February 17, 2023, and was additionally investigated by the Larned Police Department.&nbsp;The alleged acts occurred at separate private residences in Larned sometime between 2016 and the Summer of 2017.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/6/1688048306418.png" alt="Starr has been registered as a sex offender since 2001 for child sex crime convictions in Georgia, according to the Kansas Offender Registry" />
 <figcaption>Starr has been registered as a sex offender since 2001 for child sex crime convictions in Georgia, according to the Kansas Offender Registry</figcaption>
 </figure>&nbsp;Magistrate Judge Julie Cowell found the State presented sufficient evidence to support two separate sexual offenses and bound the Starr over to the higher court on two counts of Aggravated Indecent Liberties. Arraignment has been scheduled for October 26, 2023.&nbsp;Starr was arrested in Barton County on April 1, 2023, without incident. He has been in the custody of the Pawnee County Sheriff since his arrest. Bond is currently set at $100,000 cash or surety.He has been registered as a sex offender since 2001 for child sex crime convictions in Georgia in 1998, according to the Sex Offender Registry.

Sex offender from Georgia accused of sex crimes in Kansas

<a href="https://www.priceandsons.com/obituaries/verle-huff">https://www.priceandsons.com/obituaries/verle-huff</a>

Verle L. Huff, age 82, passed away on Thursday, June 29, 2023, at Parklane Nursing Home in Scott City, Kansas. He was born on December 16, 1940, in Agra, Kansas, the son of Archie Huff and Alice Stockham Huff. 

He was a resident of Scott City, Kansas since 1980 moving from Oakley, Kansas. He was a truck driver for most of his life, and he was a Marine Lance Corporal

On October 3, 1960, he married Rose I. Yehle at the United Methodist Church in Oakley, Kansas. She passed away on November 4, 2022, in Scott City, Kansas.

Survivors include one brother,- Richard Huff of Laguna Hills, California, and one brother-in-law,&nbsp; Merle Dean Yehle of North Attleborough, Massachusetts.&nbsp;

He was proceeded in death by his parents, his wife, and his brother Donald.

Funeral services will be held at 10:30 a.m. Thursday, July 6, 2023, at Price &amp; Sons Funeral Home, 401 S. Washington St., Scott City, Kansas, 67871 with Pastor Steve Payne presiding.

In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to Parklane Nursing Home in care of Price &amp; Sons Funeral Home, P.O. Box 553, Scott City, Kansas, 67871.

Visitation will be on Wednesday, July 5, 2023, from 11:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. at Price &amp; Sons Funeral Home, 401 S. Washington St., Scott City, Kansas, 67871.

Graveside services will be held at 2:00 p.m. MT, Thursday, July 6, 2023, at Wallace Cemetery in Wallace, Kansas.

To order&nbsp;<a href="https://manage2.tukioswebsites.com/o/v2/trees/de5602e7-05af-4070-90da-9d5830803031" target="_blank">memorial trees</a>&nbsp;or send flowers to the family in memory of Verle Huff, please visit our&nbsp;<a href="https://manage2.tukioswebsites.com/orders/v2/flowers/de5602e7-05af-4070-90da-9d5830803031" target="_blank">flower store</a>.

<h2>Verle Huff, Scott City</h2><figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/6/1688158788775.jpeg" alt="Verle Huff" />
 <figcaption>Verle Huff</figcaption>
 </figure><a href="https://www.priceandsons.com/obituaries/verle-huff">https://www.priceandsons.com/obituaries/verle-huff</a>Verle L. Huff, age 82, passed away on Thursday, June 29, 2023, at Parklane Nursing Home in Scott City, Kansas. He was born on December 16, 1940, in Agra, Kansas, the son of Archie Huff and Alice Stockham Huff. He was a resident of Scott City, Kansas since 1980 moving from Oakley, Kansas. He was a truck driver for most of his life, and he was a Marine Lance CorporalOn October 3, 1960, he married Rose I. Yehle at the United Methodist Church in Oakley, Kansas. She passed away on November 4, 2022, in Scott City, Kansas.Survivors include one brother,- Richard Huff of Laguna Hills, California, and one brother-in-law,&nbsp; Merle Dean Yehle of North Attleborough, Massachusetts.&nbsp;He was proceeded in death by his parents, his wife, and his brother Donald.Funeral services will be held at 10:30 a.m. Thursday, July 6, 2023, at Price &amp; Sons Funeral Home, 401 S. Washington St., Scott City, Kansas, 67871 with Pastor Steve Payne presiding.In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to Parklane Nursing Home in care of Price &amp; Sons Funeral Home, P.O. Box 553, Scott City, Kansas, 67871.Visitation will be on Wednesday, July 5, 2023, from 11:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. at Price &amp; Sons Funeral Home, 401 S. Washington St., Scott City, Kansas, 67871.Graveside services will be held at 2:00 p.m. MT, Thursday, July 6, 2023, at Wallace Cemetery in Wallace, Kansas.To order&nbsp;<a href="https://manage2.tukioswebsites.com/o/v2/trees/de5602e7-05af-4070-90da-9d5830803031" target="_blank">memorial trees</a>&nbsp;or send flowers to the family in memory of Verle Huff, please visit our&nbsp;<a href="https://manage2.tukioswebsites.com/orders/v2/flowers/de5602e7-05af-4070-90da-9d5830803031" target="_blank">flower store</a>.

Verle Huff

<a href="https://memorials.baalmannmortuary.com/Kompus-Frances/5222725/">https://memorials.baalmannmortuary.com/Kompus-Frances/5222725/</a>

Frances Josephine (Holub) Kompus, third daughter of Florian William and Frances Rose (Chleborad) Holub, was born in rural Beardsley, KS, on November 11, 1921. She died on June 28, 2023, at the age of 101, at the Rawlins County Health Center, in Atwood, KS. Frances was baptized and confirmed at Sacred Heart Catholic Church, in Atwood, where she was a life-long member. She was also a life-long resident of Rawlins County, KS, except for a period during World War II, where she worked at Gate’s Rubber Company, in Denver, CO. On May 22, 1946, Frances was united in marriage to Albert Louis Kompus, Sr, at Sacred Heart Church, Atwood. They spent their lives farming in Rawlins County. To this union, two children were born, a daughter, Frances “Fran”, and a son, Albert, Jr.

Her husband Albert preceded her in death on October 10, 1982. Over the years, Frances worked at the high school cafeteria, café, Crest Motel and in the laundry department at the Good Samaritan.

In her free time, she enjoyed playing cards, dominoes and bingo. Frances was preceded in death by her husband, Albert; daughter-in-law, Deborah (Horinek) Kompus; parents, Florian and Frances; infant brother Florian; brothers-in-law, Paul Kopriva and Victor Pochop; parents-in-law, John and Teresa (Toth) Kompus and brothers and sisters-in-law, Louella (Herman) Solko, John (Viola) (Vivian), George, Francis (Margie Howland), Emery (Verna), Elizabeth (Ralph Wolfram) (Lloyd Harden) and Wilma (Denis) Tongish. Those who are left to mourn her are daughter, Frances “Fran” (Dennis) Allacher, McCook, NE; son, Albert Kompus, Jr.; grandchildren, Denise Allacher, Danelle (Tim) Heier, Danica (Gregg) Hauxwell, Nathan Kompus, great-grandchildren, Joseph, Joshua, Alayna, Abigail, Izabella, William, Clara, Charlie (Bailey) and William; great-great-grandchildren, Hadley, Jasper and Salem; sisters, Julia Kopriva and Lucy Pochop; cousins, Louis Sabatha and Phyllis Wilkinson and a host of other relatives. A graveside service will take place at 10:30 a.m. Friday, June 30, 2023, at Mount Calvary Cemetery, Atwood, KS. Memorials may be made to the Rawlins County Health Center, Atwood Good Samaritan, or Sacred Heart Church and sent in care of Baalmann Mortuary, P.O. Box 391, Colby, KS 67701.

 For information or condolences visit baalmannmortuary.com&nbsp;&nbsp;

<h2>Frances J. Kompus</h2><figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/6/1688158405287.jpeg" alt="Frances J. Kompus" />
 <figcaption>Frances J. Kompus</figcaption>
 </figure><a href="https://memorials.baalmannmortuary.com/Kompus-Frances/5222725/">https://memorials.baalmannmortuary.com/Kompus-Frances/5222725/</a>November 11th, 1921-June 28th, 2023 Frances Josephine (Holub) Kompus, third daughter of Florian William and Frances Rose (Chleborad) Holub, was born in rural Beardsley, KS, on November 11, 1921. She died on June 28, 2023, at the age of 101, at the Rawlins County Health Center, in Atwood, KS. Frances was baptized and confirmed at Sacred Heart Catholic Church, in Atwood, where she was a life-long member. She was also a life-long resident of Rawlins County, KS, except for a period during World War II, where she worked at Gate’s Rubber Company, in Denver, CO. On May 22, 1946, Frances was united in marriage to Albert Louis Kompus, Sr, at Sacred Heart Church, Atwood. They spent their lives farming in Rawlins County. To this union, two children were born, a daughter, Frances “Fran”, and a son, Albert, Jr. Her husband Albert preceded her in death on October 10, 1982. Over the years, Frances worked at the high school cafeteria, café, Crest Motel and in the laundry department at the Good Samaritan. In her free time, she enjoyed playing cards, dominoes and bingo. Frances was preceded in death by her husband, Albert; daughter-in-law, Deborah (Horinek) Kompus; parents, Florian and Frances; infant brother Florian; brothers-in-law, Paul Kopriva and Victor Pochop; parents-in-law, John and Teresa (Toth) Kompus and brothers and sisters-in-law, Louella (Herman) Solko, John (Viola) (Vivian), George, Francis (Margie Howland), Emery (Verna), Elizabeth (Ralph Wolfram) (Lloyd Harden) and Wilma (Denis) Tongish. Those who are left to mourn her are daughter, Frances “Fran” (Dennis) Allacher, McCook, NE; son, Albert Kompus, Jr.; grandchildren, Denise Allacher, Danelle (Tim) Heier, Danica (Gregg) Hauxwell, Nathan Kompus, great-grandchildren, Joseph, Joshua, Alayna, Abigail, Izabella, William, Clara, Charlie (Bailey) and William; great-great-grandchildren, Hadley, Jasper and Salem; sisters, Julia Kopriva and Lucy Pochop; cousins, Louis Sabatha and Phyllis Wilkinson and a host of other relatives. A graveside service will take place at 10:30 a.m. Friday, June 30, 2023, at Mount Calvary Cemetery, Atwood, KS. Memorials may be made to the Rawlins County Health Center, Atwood Good Samaritan, or Sacred Heart Church and sent in care of Baalmann Mortuary, P.O. Box 391, Colby, KS 67701. For information or condolences visit baalmannmortuary.com&nbsp;&nbsp;

Frances J. Kompus

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday struck down&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/affirmative-action">affirmative action</a>&nbsp;in college admissions, declaring race cannot be a factor and forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies.

(Click below to watch the President's statement)

The court's conservative majority overturned admissions plans at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation's oldest private and public colleges, respectively.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf">Click here to read</a>&nbsp;the opinion&nbsp;

Chief Justice John Roberts said that for too long universities have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Justice Clarence Thomas — the nation's second Black justice, who had long called for an end to affirmative action — wrote separately that the decision “sees the universities’ admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the decision “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.”

Echoing her dissent, President Joe Biden said he “strongly, strongly” disagrees with the court's ruling. He urged colleges not to let the ruling “be the last word.”

"They should not abandon their commitment to ensure student bodies of diverse backgrounds and experience that reflect all of America,” Biden said from the White House. He said colleges should evaluate “adversity overcome” by candidates.

Both Thomas and Sotomayor, the two justices who have acknowledged affirmative action played a role in their admissions to college and law school, took the unusual step of reading a summary of their opinions aloud in the courtroom.

In a separate dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — the court’s first Black female justice — called the decision “truly a tragedy for us all.”

Jackson, who sat out the Harvard case because she had been a member of an advisory governing board, wrote, “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”

The vote was 6-3 in the North Carolina case and 6-2 in the Harvard case. Justice Elena Kagan was the other dissenter.

Two former presidents offered starkly different takes on the high-court ruling.

Former President Donald Trump, the current GOP presidential frontrunner, wrote on his social media network that the decision marked “a great day for America. People with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including future greatness for our Country, are finally being rewarded.”

Former President Barack Obama said in a statement that affirmative action “allowed generations of students like Michelle and me to prove we belonged. Now it’s up to all of us to give young people the opportunities they deserve — and help students everywhere benefit from new perspectives.”

The Supreme Court had twice upheld&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/college-admissions-us-supreme-court-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-harvard-university-95be5363a3245fbf185babe8423426a4">race-conscious college admissions programs</a>&nbsp;in the past 20 years, including as recently as 2016.

But that was before the three appointees of former President Donald Trump joined the court. At arguments in late October, all six conservative justices expressed doubts about the practice, which had been upheld under Supreme Court decisions reaching back to 1978.

Lower courts also had upheld the programs at both UNC and Harvard, rejecting claims that the schools discriminated against white and Asian American applicants.

The college admissions disputes are among several high-profile cases focused on race in America, and were weighed by the conservative-dominated, but most diverse court ever. Among the nine justices are four women, two Black people and a Latina.

The justices earlier in June decided a voting rights case in favor of Black voters in Alabama and rejected a race-based challenge to a Native American child protection law.

The affirmative action cases were brought by conservative activist Edward Blum, who also was behind an earlier affirmative action challenge against the University of Texas as well as the case that led the court in 2013 to end use of a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act.

Blum formed Students for Fair Admissions, which filed the lawsuits against both schools in 2014.

The group argued that the Constitution forbids the use of race in college admissions and called for overturning earlier Supreme Court decisions that said otherwise.

Roberts' opinion effectively did so, both Thomas and the dissenters wrote.

The only institutions of higher education explicitly left out of the ruling are the nation's military academies, Roberts wrote, suggesting that national security interests could affect the legal analysis.

Blum’s group had contended that colleges and universities can use other, race-neutral ways to assemble a diverse student body, including by focusing on socioeconomic status and eliminating the preference for children of alumni and major donors.

The schools said that they use race in a limited way, but that eliminating it as a factor altogether would make it much harder to achieve a student body that looks like America.

At the eight Ivy League universities, the number of nonwhite students increased by 55% from 2010 to 2021, according to federal data. That group, which includes, Native American, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Pacific Islander and biracial students, accounted for 35% of students on those campuses in 2021, up from 27% in 2010.

The end of affirmative action in higher education in California, Michigan, Washington state and elsewhere led to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-affirmative-action-college-admissions-1d37af28939a533551cff45fa577ceb0">a steep drop in minority enrollment in the states’ leading public universities</a>.

They are among nine states that already prohibit any consideration of race in admissions to their public colleges and universities. The others are: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Oklahoma.

In 2020, California voters easily rejected a ballot measure to bring back affirmative action.

A poll last month by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnorc.org/">The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research</a>&nbsp;showed 63% of U.S. adults say the court should allow colleges to consider race as part of the admissions process, yet few believe students’ race should ultimately play a major role in decisions. A Pew Research Center survey released last week found that half of Americans disapprove of considerations of applicants’ race, while a third approve.

The chief justice and Jackson received their undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard. Two other justices, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch, went to law school there, and Kagan was the first woman to serve as the law school’s dean.

Every U.S. college and university the justices attended, save one, urged the court to preserve race-conscious admissions.

Those schools — Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Notre Dame and Holy Cross — joined briefs in defense of Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions plans.

Only Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s undergraduate alma mater, Rhodes College, in Memphis, Tennessee, was not involved in the cases.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday struck down&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/affirmative-action">affirmative action</a>&nbsp;in college admissions, declaring race cannot be a factor and forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies.(Click below to watch the President's statement)<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2yQseH__Khw?start=2040" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>The court's conservative majority overturned admissions plans at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation's oldest private and public colleges, respectively.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf">Click here to read</a>&nbsp;the opinion&nbsp;Chief Justice John Roberts said that for too long universities have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”Justice Clarence Thomas — the nation's second Black justice, who had long called for an end to affirmative action — wrote separately that the decision “sees the universities’ admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes.”Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the decision “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.”<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">For decades, the Supreme Court recognized a college’s freedom to decide how to build a diverse student body and provide opportunity. Today, the Court walked away from precedent, effectively ending affirmative action in higher education. I strongly disagree with this decision.&mdash; President Biden (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1674460493803577344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 29, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Our colleges are stronger when they are racially diverse. And America is stronger because we are tapping into our full range of talent. Today&#39;s Supreme Court decision is not the last word.&mdash; President Biden (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1674461363488411648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 29, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Echoing her dissent, President Joe Biden said he “strongly, strongly” disagrees with the court's ruling. He urged colleges not to let the ruling “be the last word.”"They should not abandon their commitment to ensure student bodies of diverse backgrounds and experience that reflect all of America,” Biden said from the White House. He said colleges should evaluate “adversity overcome” by candidates.Both Thomas and Sotomayor, the two justices who have acknowledged affirmative action played a role in their admissions to college and law school, took the unusual step of reading a summary of their opinions aloud in the courtroom.In a separate dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — the court’s first Black female justice — called the decision “truly a tragedy for us all.”Jackson, who sat out the Harvard case because she had been a member of an advisory governing board, wrote, “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”The vote was 6-3 in the North Carolina case and 6-2 in the Harvard case. Justice Elena Kagan was the other dissenter.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/6/1688060191536.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>Two former presidents offered starkly different takes on the high-court ruling.Former President Donald Trump, the current GOP presidential frontrunner, wrote on his social media network that the decision marked “a great day for America. People with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including future greatness for our Country, are finally being rewarded.”Former President Barack Obama said in a statement that affirmative action “allowed generations of students like Michelle and me to prove we belonged. Now it’s up to all of us to give young people the opportunities they deserve — and help students everywhere benefit from new perspectives.”The Supreme Court had twice upheld&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/college-admissions-us-supreme-court-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-harvard-university-95be5363a3245fbf185babe8423426a4">race-conscious college admissions programs</a>&nbsp;in the past 20 years, including as recently as 2016.But that was before the three appointees of former President Donald Trump joined the court. At arguments in late October, all six conservative justices expressed doubts about the practice, which had been upheld under Supreme Court decisions reaching back to 1978.Lower courts also had upheld the programs at both UNC and Harvard, rejecting claims that the schools discriminated against white and Asian American applicants.The college admissions disputes are among several high-profile cases focused on race in America, and were weighed by the conservative-dominated, but most diverse court ever. Among the nine justices are four women, two Black people and a Latina.The justices earlier in June decided a voting rights case in favor of Black voters in Alabama and rejected a race-based challenge to a Native American child protection law.The affirmative action cases were brought by conservative activist Edward Blum, who also was behind an earlier affirmative action challenge against the University of Texas as well as the case that led the court in 2013 to end use of a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act.Blum formed Students for Fair Admissions, which filed the lawsuits against both schools in 2014.The group argued that the Constitution forbids the use of race in college admissions and called for overturning earlier Supreme Court decisions that said otherwise.Roberts' opinion effectively did so, both Thomas and the dissenters wrote.The only institutions of higher education explicitly left out of the ruling are the nation's military academies, Roberts wrote, suggesting that national security interests could affect the legal analysis.Blum’s group had contended that colleges and universities can use other, race-neutral ways to assemble a diverse student body, including by focusing on socioeconomic status and eliminating the preference for children of alumni and major donors.The schools said that they use race in a limited way, but that eliminating it as a factor altogether would make it much harder to achieve a student body that looks like America.At the eight Ivy League universities, the number of nonwhite students increased by 55% from 2010 to 2021, according to federal data. That group, which includes, Native American, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Pacific Islander and biracial students, accounted for 35% of students on those campuses in 2021, up from 27% in 2010.The end of affirmative action in higher education in California, Michigan, Washington state and elsewhere led to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-affirmative-action-college-admissions-1d37af28939a533551cff45fa577ceb0">a steep drop in minority enrollment in the states’ leading public universities</a>.They are among nine states that already prohibit any consideration of race in admissions to their public colleges and universities. The others are: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Oklahoma.In 2020, California voters easily rejected a ballot measure to bring back affirmative action.A poll last month by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnorc.org/">The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research</a>&nbsp;showed 63% of U.S. adults say the court should allow colleges to consider race as part of the admissions process, yet few believe students’ race should ultimately play a major role in decisions. A Pew Research Center survey released last week found that half of Americans disapprove of considerations of applicants’ race, while a third approve.The chief justice and Jackson received their undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard. Two other justices, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch, went to law school there, and Kagan was the first woman to serve as the law school’s dean.Every U.S. college and university the justices attended, save one, urged the court to preserve race-conscious admissions.Those schools — Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Notre Dame and Holy Cross — joined briefs in defense of Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions plans.Only Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s undergraduate alma mater, Rhodes College, in Memphis, Tennessee, was not involved in the cases.

🎥Biden: Court's affirmative action decision not the last word

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf">Click here to read</a> the opinion&nbsp;

Justice Clarence Thomas, the nation's second Black justice who had long called for an end to affirmative action, wrote separately that the decision “sees the universities’ admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/10/1667264915999.jpeg" alt="Activists demonstrate as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a pair of cases on affirmative action in college admissions, in Washington, Oct. 31, 2022. The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, June 29, 2023, that colleges and universities must stop considering race in admissions, forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies. In a 6-3 decision, the court struck down admissions plans at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation's oldest private and public colleges, respectively. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)" />
 <figcaption>Activists demonstrate as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a pair of cases on affirmative action in college admissions, in Washington, Oct. 31, 2022. The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, June 29, 2023, that colleges and universities must stop considering race in admissions, forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies. In a 6-3 decision, the court struck down admissions plans at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation's oldest private and public colleges, respectively. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday struck down&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/affirmative-action">affirmative action</a>&nbsp;in college admissions, declaring race cannot be a factor and forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf">Click here to read</a> the opinion&nbsp;The court's conservative majority overturned admissions plans at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation's oldest private and public colleges, respectively.Chief Justice John Roberts said that for too long universities have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”Justice Clarence Thomas, the nation's second Black justice who had long called for an end to affirmative action, wrote separately that the decision “sees the universities’ admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes.”Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the decision “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.”Both Thomas and Sotomayor, the two justices who have acknowledged affirmative action played a role in their admissions to college and law school, took the unusual step of reading a summary of their opinions aloud in the courtroom.In a separate dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — the court’s first Black female justice — called the decision “truly a tragedy for us all.”Jackson, who sat out the Harvard case because she had been a member of an advisory governing board, wrote, “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”The vote was 6-3 in the North Carolina case and 6-2 in the Harvard case. Justice Elena Kagan was the other dissenter.The Supreme Court had twice upheld&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/college-admissions-us-supreme-court-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-harvard-university-95be5363a3245fbf185babe8423426a4">race-conscious college admissions programs</a>&nbsp;in the past 20 years, including as recently as 2016.But that was before the three appointees of former President Donald Trump joined the court. At arguments in late October, all six conservative justices expressed doubts about the practice, which had been upheld under Supreme Court decisions reaching back to 1978.Lower courts also had upheld the programs at both UNC and Harvard, rejecting claims that the schools discriminated against white and Asian American applicants.The college admissions disputes are among several high-profile cases focused on race in America, and were weighed by the conservative-dominated, but most diverse court ever. Among the nine justices are four women, two Black people and a Latina.The justices earlier in June decided a voting rights case in favor of Black voters in Alabama and rejected a race-based challenge to a Native American child protection law.The affirmative action cases were brought by conservative activist Edward Blum, who also was behind an earlier affirmative action challenge against the University of Texas as well as the case that led the court in 2013 to end use of a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act.Blum formed Students for Fair Admissions, which filed the lawsuits against both schools in 2014.The group argued that the Constitution forbids the use of race in college admissions and called for overturning earlier Supreme Court decisions that said otherwise.Roberts' opinion effectively did so, both Thomas and the dissenters wrote.The only institutions of higher education explicitly left out of the ruling are the nation's military academies, Roberts wrote, suggesting that national security interests could affect the legal analysis.Blum’s group had contended that colleges and universities can use other, race-neutral ways to assemble a diverse student body, including by focusing on socioeconomic status and eliminating the preference for children of alumni and major donors.The schools said that they use race in a limited way, but that eliminating it as a factor altogether would make it much harder to achieve a student body that looks like America.At the eight Ivy League universities, the number of nonwhite students increased by 55% from 2010 to 2021, according to federal data. That group, which includes, Native American, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Pacific Islander and biracial students, accounted for 35% of students on those campuses in 2021, up from 27% in 2010.The end of affirmative action in higher education in California, Michigan, Washington state and elsewhere led to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-affirmative-action-college-admissions-1d37af28939a533551cff45fa577ceb0">a steep drop in minority enrollment in the states’ leading public universities</a>.They are among nine states that already prohibit any consideration of race in admissions to their public colleges and universities. The others are: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Oklahoma.In 2020, California voters easily rejected a ballot measure to bring back affirmative action.A poll last month by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnorc.org/">The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research</a>&nbsp;showed 63% of U.S. adults say the court should allow colleges to consider race as part of the admissions process, yet few believe students’ race should ultimately play a major role in decisions. A Pew Research Center survey released last week found that half of Americans disapprove of considerations of applicants’ race, while a third approve.The chief justice and Jackson received their undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard. Two other justices, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch, went to law school there, and Kagan was the first woman to serve as the law school’s dean.Every U.S. college and university the justices attended, save one, urged the court to preserve race-conscious admissions.Those schools — Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Notre Dame and Holy Cross — joined briefs in defense of Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions plans.Only Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s undergraduate alma mater, Rhodes College, in Memphis, Tennessee, was not involved in the cases.

Read the decision: Supreme Court rejects use of race for college admissions

RILEY COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating four suspects&nbsp;&nbsp;in connection to three suspected fentanyl-related overdose cases&nbsp; in Riley County, according to a media release from the Riley County Police Department.

&nbsp;Ronald Ince, 59, of Manhattan was arrested on requested charges of distribution of a controlled substance causing death, conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, and use of a communication facility for a drug transaction. Ince remains confined in the Riley County Jail with a total bond of $500,000. He has a previous conviction for heroin distribution, according to the Kansas Dept. of Corrections

Nathan Reeves, 37, of Manhattan was arrested on requested charges of distribution of a controlled substance causing death, conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, and use of a communication facility for a drug transaction. Reeves remains confined in the Riley County Jail with a total bond of $500,000. Reeves’s and Ince’s arrests stem from an investigation into the death of a 36-year-old woman in August 2021.

Caziah Self, 21, of Manhattan was arrested on requested charges of&nbsp; distribution of a controlled substance causing great bodily harm, aggravated battery, and use of a communication facility for a drug transaction stemming from an investigation into the overdose of a 31-year-old man in August of 2022. Self was issued a total bond of $250,000 for this charge. He was also arrested on two Manhattan Municipal Court warrants for failure to appear and theft. Self was also found to be in possession of two guns and a large number of pills suspected to contain fentanyl at the time of his arrest adding additional charges of drug possession with the intent to distribute, drug possession, possession of drug paraphernalia, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon by a felon. These additional charges hold a bond of $500,000. Self remains confined in the Riley County Jail with a total bond of $751,750.

Daron Jones, 21, of Manhattan was arrested on requested charges that include two counts each of distribution of a controlled substance causing great bodily harm, aggravated battery, and use of a communication facility for a drug transaction stemming from an investigation into two separate overdoses of the same 21-year-old man in August and October of 2022. Jones remains confined in the Riley County Jail with a total bond of $250,000.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/6/1687987134211.png" alt="Ince has a previous conviction for heroin distribution, according to the Kansas Dept. of Corrections" />
 <figcaption>Ince has a previous conviction for heroin distribution, according to the Kansas Dept. of Corrections</figcaption>
 </figure>RILEY COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating four suspects&nbsp;&nbsp;in connection to three suspected fentanyl-related overdose cases&nbsp; in Riley County, according to a media release from the Riley County Police Department.&nbsp;Ronald Ince, 59, of Manhattan was arrested on requested charges of distribution of a controlled substance causing death, conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, and use of a communication facility for a drug transaction. Ince remains confined in the Riley County Jail with a total bond of $500,000. He has a previous conviction for heroin distribution, according to the Kansas Dept. of CorrectionsNathan Reeves, 37, of Manhattan was arrested on requested charges of distribution of a controlled substance causing death, conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, and use of a communication facility for a drug transaction. Reeves remains confined in the Riley County Jail with a total bond of $500,000. Reeves’s and Ince’s arrests stem from an investigation into the death of a 36-year-old woman in August 2021.Caziah Self, 21, of Manhattan was arrested on requested charges of&nbsp; distribution of a controlled substance causing great bodily harm, aggravated battery, and use of a communication facility for a drug transaction stemming from an investigation into the overdose of a 31-year-old man in August of 2022. Self was issued a total bond of $250,000 for this charge. He was also arrested on two Manhattan Municipal Court warrants for failure to appear and theft. Self was also found to be in possession of two guns and a large number of pills suspected to contain fentanyl at the time of his arrest adding additional charges of drug possession with the intent to distribute, drug possession, possession of drug paraphernalia, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon by a felon. These additional charges hold a bond of $500,000. Self remains confined in the Riley County Jail with a total bond of $751,750.Daron Jones, 21, of Manhattan was arrested on requested charges that include two counts each of distribution of a controlled substance causing great bodily harm, aggravated battery, and use of a communication facility for a drug transaction stemming from an investigation into two separate overdoses of the same 21-year-old man in August and October of 2022. Jones remains confined in the Riley County Jail with a total bond of $250,000.

4 Kansas men arrested in 3 fentanyl-related overdose cases

TOPEKA&nbsp;– The Kansas Department of Commerce is accepting nominations for the 2023&nbsp;To The Stars: Kansas Business Awards. The popular annual awards program recognizes companies and individuals around the state for the positive impact they make to their communities and to the Kansas economy.

This year’s banquet and award ceremony will be held October 12th at the B-29 Doc Hangar, Education and Visitors Center in Wichita.

“It is important to celebrate the successes of Kansas companies and businesspeople who not only are driving the state economy but uplifting their local communities,”&nbsp;Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of Commerce David Toland said.&nbsp;“To The Stars&nbsp;recognizes the entrepreneurial spirit and achievement that are on display daily throughout our great state. I would encourage everyone to nominate a company or individual for this notable honor.”

Companies, organizations and individuals can be nominated in the following categories:

The Department of Commerce also will announce both the prestigious Governor’s Award of Excellence winner and the 2023 Exporter of the Year during the banquet and awards ceremony.

“There is no shortage of success stories in Kansas communities large and small,”&nbsp;Commerce Assistant Secretary of Business Development Nadira Hazim-Patrick said.&nbsp;“Spotlighting the best of the best is what&nbsp;To The Stars: Kansas Business Awards&nbsp;is all about.”

To learn more about&nbsp;To The Stars: Kansas Businesses Awards&nbsp;award categories, view past winners and to nominate a business or businessperson, including your own, click&nbsp;<a href="https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDEsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmthbnNhc2NvbW1lcmNlLmdvdi90b3RoZXN0YXJzLyIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMzA2MjIuNzg2MjE5NDEifQ.Ajp7k6xlPJvXpJjku4ONAj4n869870Lg-7PNoLtKvbk/s/1303161001/br/207219961394-l" target="_blank">here</a>. The nominations portal will accept nominations through July 20.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2019/12/1577789937052.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>KDCTOPEKA&nbsp;– The Kansas Department of Commerce is accepting nominations for the 2023&nbsp;To The Stars: Kansas Business Awards. The popular annual awards program recognizes companies and individuals around the state for the positive impact they make to their communities and to the Kansas economy.This year’s banquet and award ceremony will be held October 12th at the B-29 Doc Hangar, Education and Visitors Center in Wichita.“It is important to celebrate the successes of Kansas companies and businesspeople who not only are driving the state economy but uplifting their local communities,”&nbsp;Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of Commerce David Toland said.&nbsp;“To The Stars&nbsp;recognizes the entrepreneurial spirit and achievement that are on display daily throughout our great state. I would encourage everyone to nominate a company or individual for this notable honor.”Companies, organizations and individuals can be nominated in the following categories:<ul>
 <li>AgriBusiness&nbsp;– companies that stand out in the agribusiness industry – including agricultural production, products and services, and agri-tourism</li><li>Apprenticeship Champions and Partners&nbsp;– companies and other entities that excel providing registered apprenticeship programs in Kansas</li><li>Business Innovation&nbsp;– companies from any sector incorporating innovative technologies in their business</li><li>Healthcare/Nonprofit&nbsp;– noteworthy services provided by either healthcare facilities or nonprofit organizations</li><li>Manufacturing/Distribution&nbsp;– outstanding achievement for companies large and small involved in manufacturing and distribution</li><li>Non-Traditional Talent Pools&nbsp;– companies that have gone above and beyond to hire those with prior involvement in the justice system, youth, seniors or individuals with disabilities</li><li>Retail/Service&nbsp;– exceptional performance by businesses selling goods, products and/or services</li><li>Under 30 Entrepreneurs&nbsp;– young entrepreneurs achieving business success under the age of 30</li><li>Welcome Back&nbsp;– entrepreneurs and businesspeople who once left Kansas but have returned to make their mark in the Sunflower State</li>
 </ul>The Department of Commerce also will announce both the prestigious Governor’s Award of Excellence winner and the 2023 Exporter of the Year during the banquet and awards ceremony.“There is no shortage of success stories in Kansas communities large and small,”&nbsp;Commerce Assistant Secretary of Business Development Nadira Hazim-Patrick said.&nbsp;“Spotlighting the best of the best is what&nbsp;To The Stars: Kansas Business Awards&nbsp;is all about.”To learn more about&nbsp;To The Stars: Kansas Businesses Awards&nbsp;award categories, view past winners and to nominate a business or businessperson, including your own, click&nbsp;<a href="https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDEsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmthbnNhc2NvbW1lcmNlLmdvdi90b3RoZXN0YXJzLyIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMzA2MjIuNzg2MjE5NDEifQ.Ajp7k6xlPJvXpJjku4ONAj4n869870Lg-7PNoLtKvbk/s/1303161001/br/207219961394-l" target="_blank">here</a>. The nominations portal will accept nominations through July 20.