Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Elections

    Read the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Venezuelan Migrants

    Cite as: 604 U. S.
    (2025)
    9
    SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
    whether its March 15 deportations complied with the Dis-
    trict Court’s orders, it simultaneously sought permission to
    resume summary deportations under the Proclamation.
    The District Court, first, denied the Government’s motion
    to vacate its temporary restraining order, rejecting the as-
    sertion that “the President’s authority and discretion under
    the [Alien Enemies Act] is not a proper subject for judicial
    scrutiny.” App. to BIO 71a. At the very least, the District
    Court concluded, the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed” on
    their claim that, “before they may be deported, they are en-
    titled to individualized hearings to determine whether the
    Act applies to them at all.” 2025 WL 890401, *2. The D. C.
    Circuit, too, denied the Government a requested stay and
    kept in place the District Court’s pause on deportations un-
    der the Alien Enemies Act pending further proceedings.
    2025 WL 914682, *1 (per curiam) (Mar. 26, 2025).
    It is only this Court that sees reason to vacate, for the
    second time this week, a temporary restraining order
    standing “on its last legs.” Department of Education, 604
    U. S., at (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1). Not
    content to wait until tomorrow, when the District Court will
    have a chance to consider full preliminary injunction brief-
    ing at a scheduled hearing, this Court intervenes to relieve
    the Government of its obligation under the order.
    II
    Begin with that upon which all nine Members of this
    Court agree. The Court’s order today dictates, in no uncer-
    tain terms, that “individual[s] subject to detention and re-
    moval under the [Alien Enemies Act are] entitled to judicial
    review’ as to ‘questions of interpretation and constitution-
    ality’ of the Act as well as whether he or she ‘is in fact an
    alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.”” Ante, at 2
    (quoting Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163–164, 172,
    n. 17 (1948)). Therefore, under today’s order, courts below More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Elections

    Boris Johnson Has Run-In With Feisty Ostrich During Texas Trip

    A video showed the former British prime minister yelping and uttering a profanity after the ostrich pecked him through a window at what appeared to be a wildlife park.An ostrich pecks Boris Johnson through his car window, making him curse as his child giggles. His wife, Carrie Johnson, shared the moment from their family trip in Texas on Instagram.Carrie Johnson via InstagramBoris Johnson, the former British prime minister, was cruising slowly through what appeared to be a wildlife park when, without warning, the ostrich stuck its head through the open driver’s side window to give Mr. Johnson a feisty peck.“Ow!” Mr. Johnson can be heard shouting, as his toddler giggles with amusement.The incident was shared on Sunday in a video posted to Instagram by Mr. Johnson’s wife, Carrie Johnson, accompanied by the caption, “Too funny not to share 😂.In the clip, after Mr. Johnson yelps, he seems to express some profanities (though they are somewhat inaudible). He then grabs the steering wheel and drives away. The toddler hanging from Mr. Johnson’s arm keeps giggling.It was not immediately clear on Monday when or where exactly the video had been taken, though social media posts by Ms. Johnson and local sightings show the family on vacation in Texas.Other videos posted to Ms. Johnson’s account that appear to be from the same location show the family looking at deer and an aoudad, a goat-like animal. Another recent post from Ms. Johnson showed the family at Dinosaur Valley State Park, near Glen Rose, Texas.Mr. Johnson was in Texas less than two years ago to lobby for Republican support for Ukraine.It is not the first time Mr. Johnson, who served as prime minister from 2019 until 2022, has been at the center of slapstick public mishaps that align with his colorful and oftentimes chaotic tenure as Britain’s leader.In February 2021, Mr. Johnson struggled to put a latex glove on his hand at a vaccination center in Wales. It’s “like O.J. Simpson,” Mr. Johnson quipped, referring to the 1995 murder trial in which a glove, which was a key piece of evidence, did not fit Mr. Simpson.In July of that year, Mr. Johnson struggled to control his umbrella at a police memorial unveiling in central England.Representatives for Mr. Johnson’s family could not immediately be reached on Monday for comment regarding the incident. Several wildlife parks in the area also did not immediately respond to requests for information about whether the Johnson family had visited them.Stumpy’s Lakeside Grill, a restaurant in Granbury, Texas, posted a photo of Mr. Johnson to social media on Saturday, noting that he had dined there.“We are so honored to have him as our guest!!” the restaurant said. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Elections

    ‘Boop! The Musical’ Review: Betty Gets a Broadway Brand Extension

    The It girl with the spit curl looks great for 100, but her Broadway musical, which feels like one big merch grab, is boop-boop-a-don’t.Some shows are “what?” shows, leaving you baffled. Perhaps they involve roller-skating trains or shrouds of Turin.Others are “how?” shows, as in: Dear God, how did that happen?But the most disappointing subgenre of musical, at least in terms of opportunity cost, is the “why?” show: a well-crafted, charmingly performed, highly professional production that nobody asked for. Its intentions are foggy and sometimes suspicious.“Boop! The Musical” — now playing at the Broadhurst Theater, in a production directed and choreographed by Jerry Mitchell — is a “why?” show par excellence.And excellence it has. As Betty, the flapper of early talkie cartoons, Jasmine Amy Rogers is immensely likable. She sings fabulously, sports a credible perma-smile, nails all the Boop mannerisms and has a fetching way with a tossed-off line. I can’t imagine anyone making more of the exhausting opportunity, let alone in a Broadway debut.She is ably supported by other young talent in featured roles, luxury-cast veterans doing their damnedest and a hard-working ensemble selling Mitchell’s insistent, imaginative, precision-drilled dances. When his pinwheel kick-lines hop in unison, not one foot among 26 is left on the floor.Or make that 27, because Pudgy, Betty’s pug, a marionette with a lolling pink tongue operated by the puppeteer Phillip Huber, sometimes shakes a leg too.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Elections

    Congestion Pricing Will Live On for Several Months After Court Agreement

    State and federal officials agreed to a timeline in their court dispute over the tolling program that is likely to leave it in place until the fall. Other threats to the program still loom.The federal government and New York transit officials have agreed to allow congestion pricing, the tolling program opposed by President Trump, to continue until at least midsummer, and most likely into the fall, according to a new court filing.But it remains unclear whether the federal Department of Transportation, which has raised the specter of defunding mass transit projects in the state, could exert pressure outside the court system to try to force the program to end sooner. Sean Duffy, the secretary of transportation, has said he wants the toll to end by April 20.The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates the program, declined to comment on the letter that detailed the agreement. The document was filed on Friday in federal court in Manhattan as part of a lawsuit by the M.T.A. against the Department of Transportation over the government’s efforts to kill the toll. The letter said that the authority and federal officials would abide by a timeline that would not resolve the dispute until at least late July. It also noted that the federal government does not currently plan to seek an injunction, which could have potentially halted the program in the meantime.The Department of Transportation did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The agreement signals another temporary reprieve for the M.T.A. and Gov. Kathy Hochul, who has vowed to keep the tolling cameras on. Congestion pricing, which charges most drivers $9 to enter Manhattan below 60th Street during peak traffic times, began in January, with the goals of reducing traffic and raising $15 billion for critical mass-transit upgrades in the region.Sam Spokony, a spokesman for the governor, declined to comment on the court document, but reiterated Ms. Hochul’s support for the program. “Since congestion pricing took effect three months ago, traffic is down and business is up — and that’s the kind of progress we’re going to keep delivering for New Yorkers,” he said.For months, President Trump has promised to kill congestion pricing, claiming, without offering evidence, that the toll is harmful to the city’s economy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares179 Views

    in Elections

    Why Did Wall Street Get Trump So Wrong?

    Donald Trump’s 2024 election sent many finance types into spasms of anticipatory ecstasy as they imagined freedom from regulations, taxes and unfamiliar pronouns. “Bankers and financiers say Trump’s victory has emboldened those who chafed at ‘woke doctrine’ and felt they had to self-censor or change their language to avoid offending younger colleagues, women, minorities or disabled people,” The Financial Times reported a few days before Trump’s inauguration. It quoted one leading banker crowing — anonymously — about finally being able to use slurs like “retard” again. The vibes had shifted; the animal spirits were loose.“We’re stepping into the most pro-growth, pro-business, pro-American administration I’ve perhaps seen in my adult lifetime,” gushed the hedge fund manager Bill Ackman in December.One Wall Street veteran, however, understood the risk an unleashed Trump posed to the economy. After Trump’s victory in November, Peter Berezin, chief global strategist at BCA Research, which provides macroeconomic research to major financial institutions, estimated that the chance of a recession had climbed to 75 percent. “The prospect of an escalation of the trade war is likely to depress corporate investment while lowering real household disposable income,” said a BCA report.The surprising thing isn’t that Berezin saw the Trump tariff crisis coming, but that so many of his peers didn’t. You don’t have to be a sophisticated financial professional, after all, to understand that Trump believes, firmly and ardently, in taxing imports, and he thinks any country that sells more goods to America than it buys must be ripping us off. All you had to do was read the news or listen to Trump’s own words. Yet Berezin was an outlier; most of the people who make a living off their financial acumen had less understanding of Trump’s priorities than a casual viewer of MSNBC.On Monday, as stocks whipsawed on shifting news and rumors about the tariffs, I spoke to Berezin, who is based in Montreal, about how Wall Street had gotten Trump so wrong. He told me that many investors who pride themselves on their savvy are in fact just creatures of the herd. “All these cognitive biases that amateur retail investors are subject to, the Wall Street pros, are, if anything, even more subject to them because they’ve got career risk associated with bucking the trend,” he said.People in finance, said Berezin, are more likely to be punished for being too cautious and pessimistic than for being too hopeful and aggressive. Last year, for instance, a famed strategist named Marko Kolanovic left JPMorgan Chase abruptly when his gloomy predictions about 2023 and 2024 turned out to be wrong, or least premature. Mike Wilson, also known for his bearishness, stepped down from his post as chair of Morgan Stanley’s Global Investment Committee, though he stayed with the company. “You don’t get fired for being bullish, but you do get fired for being bearish on Wall Street,” said Berezin.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 175 Shares159 Views

    in Elections

    El discurso de Trump sobre un tercer mandato desafía la Constitución y la democracia

    La 22.ª Enmienda es clara: el presidente de EE. UU. tiene que renunciar a su cargo tras su segundo mandato. Pero la negativa de Trump a aceptarlo sugiere hasta dónde está dispuesto a llegar para mantenerse en el poder.Después de que el presidente Donald Trump dijera el año pasado que quería ser dictador por un día, insistió en que solo estaba bromeando. Ahora dice que podría intentar aferrarse al poder incluso cuando la Constitución estipula que debe renunciar a él, y esta vez, insiste en que no está bromeando.Puede que sí y puede que no. A Trump le gusta alborotar el avispero y sacar de quicio a los críticos. Hablar de un tercer mandato inconstitucional distrae de otras noticias y retrasa el momento en que se le considere como un presidente saliente. Sin duda, algunos en su propio bando lo consideran una broma, mientras los líderes republicanos se ríen de ello y los ayudantes de la Casa Blanca se burlan de los periodistas por tomárselo demasiado en serio.Pero el hecho de que Trump haya introducido la idea en la conversación nacional ilustra la incertidumbre sobre el futuro del sistema constitucional estadounidense, casi 250 años después de que el país obtuviera la independencia. Más que en ningún otro momento en generaciones, se cuestiona el compromiso del presidente con los límites al poder y el Estado de derecho, y sus críticos temen que el país se encamine por una senda oscura.Después de todo, Trump ya intentó una vez aferrarse al poder desafiando la Constitución, cuando trató de anular las elecciones de 2020 a pesar de haber perdido. Más tarde pidió la “rescisión” de la Constitución para volver a la Casa Blanca sin una nueva elección. Y en las 11 semanas transcurridas desde que reasumió el cargo, ha presionado los límites del poder ejecutivo más que ninguno de sus predecesores modernos.“En mi opinión, esto es la culminación de lo que ya ha empezado, que es un esfuerzo metódico por desestabilizar y socavar nuestra democracia para poder asumir un poder mucho mayor”, dijo en una entrevista el representante Daniel Goldman, demócrata por Nueva York y consejero principal durante el primer juicio político a Trump.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Elections

    The Nutritionist Marion Nestle Meets Her Moment, At 88

    On a dreary February afternoon in Westchester County, N.Y., the cooks, farmers, servers and other staff of the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture convened over a roast beef dinner to hear Marion Nestle hold forth on the state of food politics.Dr. Nestle, one of the country’s foremost experts on nutrition policy, was still trying to get her head around the political realignments of the prior months. After his win in November, Donald J. Trump selected Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to run his federal health department. The partnership produced a new take on an old slogan, “Make America Healthy Again.” It also led the McDonald’s-loving Mr. Trump to publicly criticize the “industrial food complex.”The phrasing stood out to Dr. Nestle, a molecular biologist turned nutritionist who has spent decades pushing for stricter regulation of food additives and removing conflicts of interest from government health policy.“He sounds just like me when he talks!” Dr. Nestle, who describes herself as “firmly left-wing,” told the crowd, eliciting laughter. “How is that possible?”Dr. Nestle (pronounced NESS-ul) is not a name on the level of the chef Alice Waters or the food writer Michael Pollan. But among food activists and academics, she is considered one of the most influential framers of the modern food movement. She was among the first, in 2002, to lay the blame for America’s obesity epidemic at the feet of the food industry when she released “Food Politics,” a book of case studies illustrating how the industry manipulates government policy and the scientific establishment to its own ends.Dr. Nestle was 65 when the book came out, and she could have stopped then. Instead, she has been on a run ever since, publishing a dozen more books, globe-trotting to deliver speeches and serving as a go-to source for journalists. But only now, at 88, does she seem to be reaching her peak. For years, Dr. Nestle’s ideas placed her in food policy’s progressive camp. But today, fears about food additives and environmental toxins are rampant, and some of her longest held and most passionate beliefs — about topics like regenerative agriculture, school lunches and additives — are marching toward the bipartisan center.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Elections

    A $4 Billion Sex Abuse Settlement in L.A., After Childhoods of ‘Pure Hell’

    MaryAlice Ashbrook remembers the rain on the night the Los Angeles police retrieved her, the 8-year-old child of a pill-addicted mother, and took her to the MacLaren Children’s Center, the county-run foster home where she was preyed upon. Shirley Bodkin remembers the smell of the staff member there who would put her on his lap and make her hold a Raggedy Ann doll while he hurt her. J.C. Wright remembers the social workers who accused him, at age 7, of “fabricating” when he tried telling them what a doctor there had done to him. Those memories are decades old. Ms. Ashbrook is 65 now, a retired bookkeeper in Yuma, Ariz. Ms. Bodkin is 58, the mother of two grown sons in the Southern California beach town of Dana Point. Mr. Wright is 42, a truck driver and father of four in suburban Los Angeles.Whole chapters of their lives have gone by — marriages, children, careers — yet the memories have never ceased to torment them. Ms. Ashbrook tried electroshock therapy. Ms. Bodkin attempted suicide. Mr. Wright lived on the streets for years, ending up in prison. There was no escaping the nightmares, they said in interviews on Sunday. So they turned to the courts for some measure of relief.Last week, it arrived, for them and nearly 7,000 other plaintiffs who say they were sexually abused as children in Los Angeles County’s juvenile detention and foster care systems, in cases dating to the late 1950s. In a settlement that lawyers say is the largest of its kind in the nation, the county publicly apologized and agreed to pay a record $4 billion, dwarfing previous settlements in child sex abuse cases brought against the Boy Scouts of America and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. The wave of claims — so immense that officials had warned before the deal that Los Angeles County, the nation’s most populous, could be bankrupted by it — came after California gave childhood victims a new window to sue, even though the statute of limitations had expired. The county’s Board of Supervisors is expected to formally approve the payout on April 29.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More