window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
},
"news_12026494": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12026494",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12026494",
"found": true
},
"title": "20250210_Unhoused-Ban_DMB_00250",
"publishDate": 1739225401,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1739391190,
"caption": "Devante Booth works to clean up the area of his makeshift shelter near Quarry Lakes Drive in Fremont, California, on Monday, Feb. 10, 2025. Booth says he grew up in the system after his mother put him in a tub of boiling water at the age of 3. \"We don't choose to live like this,\" Booth says. On Feb. 11, 2025, Fremont city leaders are expected to vote on a proposed public camping ban that extends punishment beyond those living on the streets to people who facilitate or conceal encampments in what is being described as a first-in-the-state ban.",
"credit": "David M. Barreda/KQED",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/20250210_Unhoused-Ban_DMB_00250-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/20250210_Unhoused-Ban_DMB_00250-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/20250210_Unhoused-Ban_DMB_00250-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/20250210_Unhoused-Ban_DMB_00250-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/20250210_Unhoused-Ban_DMB_00250-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/20250210_Unhoused-Ban_DMB_00250-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/20250210_Unhoused-Ban_DMB_00250-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/20250210_Unhoused-Ban_DMB_00250.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12004888": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12004888",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12004888",
"found": true
},
"title": "032723-Isaac-Bryan-MG-CM-01",
"publishDate": 1726516312,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12004883,
"modified": 1733172184,
"caption": "Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Culver City) on the Assembly floor at the state Capitol on March 27, 2023.",
"credit": "Miguel Gutierrez Jr./CalMatters",
"altTag": "A young, bald Black man with a beard, wearing a grey suit, speaks at a formal hearing.",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/032723-Isaac-Bryan-MG-CM-01-800x533.jpeg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/032723-Isaac-Bryan-MG-CM-01-1020x680.jpeg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/032723-Isaac-Bryan-MG-CM-01-160x107.jpeg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/032723-Isaac-Bryan-MG-CM-01-1536x1024.jpeg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/032723-Isaac-Bryan-MG-CM-01-672x372.jpeg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/032723-Isaac-Bryan-MG-CM-01-1038x576.jpeg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/032723-Isaac-Bryan-MG-CM-01.jpeg",
"width": 1568,
"height": 1045
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11992793": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11992793",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11992793",
"found": true
},
"title": "Donald Trump Gives Speech On Presidential Election In New York",
"publishDate": 1719941295,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 11992777,
"modified": 1719941598,
"caption": "California Democrats criticized the Supreme Court's decision granting presidents presumptive immunity from prosecution for official acts after leaving office, aligning with dissenting liberal justices who argued it places presidents above the law — a ruling seen as a significant victory for former President Trump in his federal criminal case.",
"credit": "Drew Angerer/Getty Images",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/07/GettyImages-542134774_qed-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/07/GettyImages-542134774_qed-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/07/GettyImages-542134774_qed-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/07/GettyImages-542134774_qed-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/07/GettyImages-542134774_qed-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/07/GettyImages-542134774_qed-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/07/GettyImages-542134774_qed-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/07/GettyImages-542134774_qed.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11981045": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11981045",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11981045",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11981042,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/GettyImages-2107850437-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/GettyImages-2107850437-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/GettyImages-2107850437-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/GettyImages-2107850437-scaled.jpg",
"width": 2560,
"height": 1707
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/GettyImages-2107850437-2048x1365.jpg",
"width": 2048,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1365
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/GettyImages-2107850437-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 680
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/GettyImages-2107850437-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1024
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/GettyImages-2107850437-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1280
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/GettyImages-2107850437-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
}
},
"publishDate": 1711578234,
"modified": 1711578234,
"caption": "WASHINGTON D.C. - MARCH 26: People gather to rally on broad access to the abortion pill outside the U.S. Supreme Court as justices hear oral arguments in a bid by President Joe Biden's administration to preserve broad access to abortion pill in Washington DC, United States on March 26, 2024. Also, anti-abortion protesters and pro-abortion rights protesters argue during a rally. (Photo by Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images)",
"description": null,
"title": "Protest against broad access to abortion pill outside U.S. Supreme Court",
"credit": null,
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11946812": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11946812",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11946812",
"found": true
},
"title": "US-ABORTION-DEMONSTRATION-SOCIAL-HEALTH-WOMEN",
"publishDate": 1681590684,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 11946802,
"modified": 1723081672,
"caption": "Demonstrators rally in support of abortion rights at the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on April 15, 2023, a day after the court temporarily preserved access to mifepristone, a widely used abortion pill.",
"credit": "Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images",
"altTag": "Protesters outside a neoclassical white building with columns holding signs that read \"Keep Abortion Legal.\"",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/04/GettyImages-1251851922-800x534.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 534,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/04/GettyImages-1251851922-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/04/GettyImages-1251851922-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/04/GettyImages-1251851922-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/04/GettyImages-1251851922-1024x576.jpg",
"width": 1024,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/04/GettyImages-1251851922.jpg",
"width": 1024,
"height": 683
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11980697": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11980697",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11980697",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11980696,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/dobbs-promo-6e472af911c48627b178c604b863a23cb98b645c-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/dobbs-promo-6e472af911c48627b178c604b863a23cb98b645c-160x120.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 120
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/dobbs-promo-6e472af911c48627b178c604b863a23cb98b645c-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/dobbs-promo-6e472af911c48627b178c604b863a23cb98b645c.jpg",
"width": 1497,
"height": 1123
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/dobbs-promo-6e472af911c48627b178c604b863a23cb98b645c-1020x765.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 765
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/dobbs-promo-6e472af911c48627b178c604b863a23cb98b645c-800x600.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 600
}
},
"publishDate": 1711402015,
"modified": 1711402586,
"caption": "The Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion on June 24, 2022.",
"description": null,
"title": "The Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion on June 24, 2022.",
"credit": "Tracy Lee/NPR",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": "An illustration of a silhouette of a woman behind a translucent cube with a plane, pregnant person, protestors and a doctor in the background.",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11979855": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11979855",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11979855",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11979853,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24076591843868-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24076591843868-160x109.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 109
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24076591843868-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24076591843868-scaled.jpg",
"width": 2560,
"height": 1752
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24076591843868-2048x1401.jpg",
"width": 2048,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1401
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24076591843868-1020x698.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 698
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24076591843868-1536x1051.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1051
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24076591843868-1920x1314.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1314
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24076591843868-800x547.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 547
}
},
"publishDate": 1710798658,
"modified": 1710798713,
"caption": "App logos for Facebook, left, and X, formerly known as Twitter, are seen on a mobile phone in Los Angeles, Saturday, March 16, 2024. The Supreme Court is taking up a dispute Monday, March 18, between Republican-led states and the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics like COVID-19 and election security. The case involves posts on Facebook, X and other media platforms. ",
"description": null,
"title": "Supreme Court Biden Administration Social Media",
"credit": "Paula Ulichney/The Associated Press",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": "pp logos for Facebook, left, and X, formerly known as Twitter, are seen on a mobile phone.",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11977999": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11977999",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11977999",
"found": true
},
"title": "Election 2024 Trump Insurrection Amendment",
"publishDate": 1709586448,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 11977992,
"modified": 1720637670,
"caption": "The US Supreme Court is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on March 4, 2024.",
"credit": "J. Scott Applewhite/The Associated Press",
"altTag": "A large building with stone columns with statues on both sides.",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24064585927760-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24064585927760-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24064585927760-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24064585927760-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24064585927760-2048x1365.jpg",
"width": 2048,
"height": 1365,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24064585927760-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24064585927760-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24064585927760-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/03/AP24064585927760-scaled.jpg",
"width": 2560,
"height": 1706
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11977491": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11977491",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11977491",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11977488,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/gettyimages-2003719864_wide-0b60d06891519266be8dcac36587c046d5c3530c-s1600-c85-copy-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/gettyimages-2003719864_wide-0b60d06891519266be8dcac36587c046d5c3530c-s1600-c85-copy-160x90.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 90
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/gettyimages-2003719864_wide-0b60d06891519266be8dcac36587c046d5c3530c-s1600-c85-copy-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/gettyimages-2003719864_wide-0b60d06891519266be8dcac36587c046d5c3530c-s1600-c85-copy.jpg",
"width": 1600,
"height": 899
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/gettyimages-2003719864_wide-0b60d06891519266be8dcac36587c046d5c3530c-s1600-c85-copy-1020x573.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 573
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/gettyimages-2003719864_wide-0b60d06891519266be8dcac36587c046d5c3530c-s1600-c85-copy-1536x863.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 863
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/gettyimages-2003719864_wide-0b60d06891519266be8dcac36587c046d5c3530c-s1600-c85-copy-800x450.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 450
}
},
"publishDate": 1709163113,
"modified": 1709163225,
"caption": "The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, Feb. 14, 2024.",
"description": null,
"title": "gettyimages-2003719864_wide-0b60d06891519266be8dcac36587c046d5c3530c-s1600-c85 copy",
"credit": "Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11975151": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11975151",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11975151",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11975149,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/GettyImages-1987886873-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/GettyImages-1987886873-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/GettyImages-1987886873-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/GettyImages-1987886873-scaled.jpg",
"width": 2560,
"height": 1708
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/GettyImages-1987886873-2048x1366.jpg",
"width": 2048,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1366
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/GettyImages-1987886873-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 680
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/GettyImages-1987886873-1536x1025.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1025
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/GettyImages-1987886873-1920x1281.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1281
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/02/GettyImages-1987886873-800x534.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 534
}
},
"publishDate": 1707430734,
"modified": 1707430734,
"caption": "WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 8: Protesters demonstrate outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on February 8, 2024 in Washington, DC. The court will hear oral arguments in a case on whether or not former President Trump can remain on the ballot in Colorado for the 2024 presidential election. (Photo by Julia Nikhinson/Getty Images)",
"description": null,
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments On 14th Amendment And Trump",
"credit": null,
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": null,
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11958413": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11958413",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11958413",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11958412,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/ap23228683282099-c9dd334946fd52c7c570f31016119b63675453fd-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/ap23228683282099-c9dd334946fd52c7c570f31016119b63675453fd-160x120.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 120
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/ap23228683282099-c9dd334946fd52c7c570f31016119b63675453fd-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/ap23228683282099-c9dd334946fd52c7c570f31016119b63675453fd.jpg",
"width": 2153,
"height": 1615
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/ap23228683282099-c9dd334946fd52c7c570f31016119b63675453fd-2048x1536.jpg",
"width": 2048,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1536
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/ap23228683282099-c9dd334946fd52c7c570f31016119b63675453fd-1020x765.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 765
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/ap23228683282099-c9dd334946fd52c7c570f31016119b63675453fd-1536x1152.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1152
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/ap23228683282099-c9dd334946fd52c7c570f31016119b63675453fd-1920x1440.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1440
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/08/ap23228683282099-c9dd334946fd52c7c570f31016119b63675453fd-800x600.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 600
}
},
"publishDate": 1692224961,
"modified": 1692232383,
"caption": "A patient prepares to take the first of 2 combination pills, mifepristone, for a medication abortion during a visit to a clinic in Kansas City, Kan., on, Oct. 12, 2022. New restrictions on access to the drug used in the most common form of abortion would be imposed under a federal appeals court ruling issued Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2023, but the Supreme Court will have the final say. ",
"description": "FILE - A patient prepares to take the first of two combination pills, mifepristone, for a medication abortion during a visit to a clinic in Kansas City, Kan., on, Oct. 12, 2022. New restrictions on access to the drug used in the most common form of abortion would be imposed under a federal appeals court ruling issued Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2023, but the Supreme Court will have the final say. ",
"title": "A patient prepares to take mifepristone, for a medication abortion. A federal appeals court ruled to impose new restrictions on the drug Wednesday but the ruling will not take effect until the Supreme Court weighs in.",
"credit": "Charlie Riedel/The Associated Press",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": "A person's hand drops a white pill into their other hand.",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11955693": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11955693",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11955693",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11955680,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/GettyImages-180517172-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/GettyImages-180517172-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/GettyImages-180517172-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/GettyImages-180517172-scaled.jpg",
"width": 2560,
"height": 1707
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/GettyImages-180517172-2048x1365.jpg",
"width": 2048,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1365
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/GettyImages-180517172-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 680
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/GettyImages-180517172-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1024
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/GettyImages-180517172-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1280
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/GettyImages-180517172-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
}
},
"publishDate": 1689298370,
"modified": 1689356122,
"caption": "In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court's conservative majority ruled that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples. Here's what you can expect in the short and long term.",
"description": null,
"title": "Flags in the Castro",
"credit": "Manakin/Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": "Two flags hang from the bay window of a home. One flag is the California state flag with the rainbow flag on the lower half and the other flag is the US flag with the stripes replaced with a rainbow.",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"byline_news_12016282": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_12016282",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_12016282",
"name": "Sophie Austin, Trân Nguyễn and Olga R. Rodriguez, Associated Press",
"isLoading": false
},
"byline_news_11980822": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_11980822",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_11980822",
"name": "Mark Sherman \u003cbr> Associated Press",
"isLoading": false
},
"byline_news_11980696": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_11980696",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_11980696",
"name": "Selena Simmons-Duffin",
"isLoading": false
},
"byline_news_11979853": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_11979853",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_11979853",
"name": "Mark Sherman\u003cbr>The Associated Press\u003c/br>",
"isLoading": false
},
"byline_news_11977992": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_11977992",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_11977992",
"name": "Nicholas Riccardi\u003cbr>The Associated Press\u003c/br>",
"isLoading": false
},
"byline_news_11977488": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_11977488",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_11977488",
"name": "\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/people/127410674/carrie-johnson\">Carrie Johnson\u003c/a>, \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/people/2101289/nina-totenberg\">Nina Totenberg\u003c/a>",
"isLoading": false
},
"byline_news_11958412": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_11958412",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_11958412",
"name": "\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/people/349308023/selena-simmons-duffin\">Selena Simmons-Duffin\u003c/a> and Diane Webber",
"isLoading": false
},
"kqed": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "236",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "236",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqed",
"email": "faq@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqed"
},
"scottshafer": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "255",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "255",
"found": true
},
"name": "Scott Shafer",
"firstName": "Scott",
"lastName": "Shafer",
"slug": "scottshafer",
"email": "sshafer@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Scott Shafer is a senior editor with the KQED Politics and Government desk. He is co-host of Political Breakdown, the award-winning radio show and podcast with a personal take on the world of politics. Scott came to KQED in 1998 to host the statewide\u003cem> California Report\u003c/em>. Prior to that he had extended stints in politics and government\u003cem>.\u003c/em> He uses that inside experience at KQED in his, reporting, hosting and analysis for the politics desk. Scott collaborated \u003cem>Political Breakdown a\u003c/em>nd on \u003cem>The Political Mind of Jerry Brown, \u003c/em>an eight-part series about the life and extraordinary political career of the former governor. For fun, he plays water polo with the San Francisco Tsunami.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "scottshafer",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Scott Shafer | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/scottshafer"
},
"mlagos": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "3239",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "3239",
"found": true
},
"name": "Marisa Lagos",
"firstName": "Marisa",
"lastName": "Lagos",
"slug": "mlagos",
"email": "mlagos@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Marisa Lagos is a correspondent for KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk and co-hosts the award-winning show and podcast, Political Breakdown. At KQED, Lagos also conducts reporting, analysis and investigations into state, local and national politics for radio, TV, online and onstage. In 2022, she and co-host, Scott Shafer, moderated the only gubernatorial debate in California. In 2020, the \u003ci>Washington Post\u003c/i> named her one of the top political journalists in California; she was nominated for a Peabody and won several other awards for her work investigating the 2017 California wildfires. She has worked at the \u003ci>San Francisco Chronicle\u003c/i>, \u003ci>San Francisco Examiner\u003c/i> and \u003ci>Los Angeles Times\u003c/i>. A UC Santa Barbara graduate, she lives in San Francisco with her two sons and husband.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "@mlagos",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Marisa Lagos | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/mlagos"
},
"carlysevern": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "3243",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "3243",
"found": true
},
"name": "Carly Severn",
"firstName": "Carly",
"lastName": "Severn",
"slug": "carlysevern",
"email": "csevern@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Senior Editor, Audience News ",
"bio": "Carly is KQED's Senior Editor of Audience News on the Digital News team, and has reported for the California Report Magazine, Bay Curious and KQED Arts. She's formerly the host of \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/pop/category/the-cooler/\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The Cooler\u003c/a> podcast.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/54037bf5c128fe678f0ef26cec97a93f2e7f220a22d7285703328f12c42c1b1d?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "teacupinthebay",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "pop",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "about",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "mindshift",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "bayareabites",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "food",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "perspectives",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Carly Severn | KQED",
"description": "Senior Editor, Audience News ",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/54037bf5c128fe678f0ef26cec97a93f2e7f220a22d7285703328f12c42c1b1d?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/54037bf5c128fe678f0ef26cec97a93f2e7f220a22d7285703328f12c42c1b1d?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/carlysevern"
},
"ecruzguevarra": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "8654",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "8654",
"found": true
},
"name": "Ericka Cruz Guevarra",
"firstName": "Ericka",
"lastName": "Cruz Guevarra",
"slug": "ecruzguevarra",
"email": "ecruzguevarra@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Producer, The Bay Podcast",
"bio": "Ericka Cruz Guevarra is host of \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/thebay\">\u003cem>The Bay\u003c/em>\u003c/a> podcast at KQED. Before host, she was the show’s producer. Her work in that capacity includes a three-part reported series on policing in Vallejo, which won a 2020 excellence in journalism award from the Society of Professional Journalists. Ericka has worked as a breaking news reporter at Oregon Public Broadcasting, helped produce the Code Switch podcast, and was KQED’s inaugural Raul Ramirez Diversity Fund intern. She’s also an alumna of NPR’s Next Generation Radio program. Send her an email if you have strong feelings about whether Fairfield and Suisun City are the Bay. Ericka is represented by SAG-AFTRA.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/accefc1de4bafc7e234b69bcb9b6f6536c130fd84709bc3069ef11a78787e1bb?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "NotoriousECG",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor",
"manage_categories"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Ericka Cruz Guevarra | KQED",
"description": "Producer, The Bay Podcast",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/accefc1de4bafc7e234b69bcb9b6f6536c130fd84709bc3069ef11a78787e1bb?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/accefc1de4bafc7e234b69bcb9b6f6536c130fd84709bc3069ef11a78787e1bb?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/ecruzguevarra"
},
"vrancano": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11276",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11276",
"found": true
},
"name": "Vanessa Rancaño",
"firstName": "Vanessa",
"lastName": "Rancaño",
"slug": "vrancano",
"email": "vrancano@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Reporter",
"bio": "Vanessa Rancaño is a features reporter for KQED. She’s also covered homelessness and education for the station and reported from the Central Valley. Her work has aired across public radio, from flagship national news shows to longform narrative podcasts. Before taking up a mic, she worked as a freelance print journalist. She’s been recognized with a number of national and regional awards. Vanessa grew up in California's Central Valley. She's a former NPR Kroc Fellow, and a graduate of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b3a383dfb0e7ee1c17568f2cf067904ab654d6e3de9743fc661f3c788ade1bed?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "vanessarancano",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Vanessa Rancaño | KQED",
"description": "Reporter",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b3a383dfb0e7ee1c17568f2cf067904ab654d6e3de9743fc661f3c788ade1bed?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b3a383dfb0e7ee1c17568f2cf067904ab654d6e3de9743fc661f3c788ade1bed?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/vrancano"
},
"agonzalez": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11724",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11724",
"found": true
},
"name": "Alexander Gonzalez",
"firstName": "Alexander",
"lastName": "Gonzalez",
"slug": "agonzalez",
"email": "AlexanderGonzalez@KQED.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9e291ed34e154df4c662edf858b641d70b4859939bfe40be478408f9dfd057d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Alexander Gonzalez | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9e291ed34e154df4c662edf858b641d70b4859939bfe40be478408f9dfd057d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9e291ed34e154df4c662edf858b641d70b4859939bfe40be478408f9dfd057d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/agonzalez"
},
"jessicakariisa": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11831",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11831",
"found": true
},
"name": "Jessica Kariisa",
"firstName": "Jessica",
"lastName": "Kariisa",
"slug": "jessicakariisa",
"email": "jkariisa@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "Producer, The Bay",
"bio": "Jessica Kariisa is the producer of The Bay. She first joined KQED as an intern for The California Report Magazine, after which she became an on-call producer. She reported a Bay Curious episode on the use of rap lyrics in criminal trials which won a Society of Professional Journalists award in 2023 for Excellence in Features Journalism and the 2023 Signal Award for Best Conversation Starter. She’s worked on podcasts for Snap Judgment and American Public Media. Before embarking on her audio career, she was a music journalist.\r\n\r\nJessica Kariisa is represented by SAG-AFTRA.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/522e97b28ac0b3d411621c0fde8f3419c7b71ea2c5c262c57c4bb600963f328c?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor",
"manage_categories"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Jessica Kariisa | KQED",
"description": "Producer, The Bay",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/522e97b28ac0b3d411621c0fde8f3419c7b71ea2c5c262c57c4bb600963f328c?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/522e97b28ac0b3d411621c0fde8f3419c7b71ea2c5c262c57c4bb600963f328c?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/jessicakariisa"
},
"mvelasquez": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11939",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11939",
"found": true
},
"name": "Mel Velasquez",
"firstName": "Mel",
"lastName": "Velasquez",
"slug": "mvelasquez",
"email": "mvelasquez@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/409094312d56fab09fef4251e949ffa6?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": "www.linkedin.com/in/melanievelasquezz",
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Mel Velasquez | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/409094312d56fab09fef4251e949ffa6?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/409094312d56fab09fef4251e949ffa6?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/mvelasquez"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_tag_supreme-court": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_932",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "932",
"score": 8.558821
},
"featImg": null,
"name": "supreme court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "supreme court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 942,
"slug": "supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"title": "supreme court",
"pageMeta": {
"site": "news",
"WpPageTemplate": "page-topic-editorial",
"currentPage": 2
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?tag=supreme-court",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 2
}
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad"
}
]
}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"postsReducer": {
"stream_live": {
"type": "live",
"id": "stream_live",
"audioUrl": "https://streams.kqed.org/kqedradio",
"title": "Live Stream",
"excerpt": "Live Stream information currently unavailable.",
"link": "/radio",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "KQED Live",
"link": "/"
}
},
"stream_kqedNewscast": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "stream_kqedNewscast",
"audioUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/RDnews/newscast.mp3?_=1",
"title": "KQED Newscast",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "88.5 FM",
"link": "/"
}
},
"news_12027571": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12027571",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12027571",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1739962831000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "fremont-passes-californias-most-extreme-encampment-ban",
"title": "Fremont Passes California’s Most Extreme Encampment Ban",
"publishDate": 1739962831,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Fremont Passes California’s Most Extreme Encampment Ban | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Cities across California are cracking down on homeless encampments following a Supreme Court ruling last year giving local governments the O.K. to do so. Fremont recently took a bigger step than most, by also prohibiting anyone from “aiding and abetting” camping on public property and private land. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC1651500540\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Some members of the KQED podcast team are represented by The Screen Actors Guild, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. San Francisco Northern California Local.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:16] Fremont now has one of, it seems like the most extreme camping bans in California is how I’ve seen it described. What would this ban, this ordinance that the city just passed, what would it do exactly?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:01:30] So the basics are that it bans camping on public property citywide. It also bans camping on private property, and that includes residential property for more than three consecutive nights. The piece that’s really alarmed some people is that it prohibits anyone from, “permitting, aiding, abetting, or concealing camping” on any of that property. A violation of the ordinance is punishable by up to six months in jail or a fine of up to $1 ,000.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:02:14] Oh, wow. Okay, so when I hear aiding and abetting, I mean, are we talking about people giving a homeless person a blanket or having someone couch surf in your house? Like, what exactly do we mean when we say aiding and abetting?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:02:38] Well, it’s very unclear in the language of the ordinance itself, which is one of the huge issues that a lot of people have with this ordinance. City officials say that they intend to apply it narrowly, but that language is not in the ordinance itself.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:03:03] I mean, Vanessa, has there ever been a camping ban quite like this in California, like the one Fremont just passed?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:03:09] So the legal experts I talked to say no. There are certainly laws that ban camping on public property anytime, anywhere, but certainly in California, they say that there is no camping ban that includes this sort of aiding and abetting language.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:03:31] When you hear from city officials about why they passed this ordinance, I mean, how do they talk about the intention here? What do city leaders say about that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:03:42] Good evening, everybody. I’d like to call the city council meeting to order for February 12th.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:03:49] At the city council meeting where council members were considering adopting this ordinance, they brought out a number of city officials to answer their questions. So the head of economic development spoke about some of the impacts of homelessness on the business community. People in charge of homelessness services laid out all of the city’s different efforts around homelessness and the amount of money being spent, which they said is roughly around $8 million a year. And the chief of police, Sean Washington, spoke about how he intended for his officers to use this ordinance, like how they would enforce it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sean Washington \u003c/strong>[00:04:33] The intent will never be to arrest someone for being unhoused. And in fact, our policies prohibit us from doing that. This ordinance is another tool to bring some balance to where there’s conflict or a hazard or a safety concern to our community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:04:59] They frame it as an attempt to take a, quote, balanced approach to dealing with homelessness. So they point out all of the investments that the city has made in providing services, roughly $8 million a year, rental assistance, financial coaching. I mean, there’s mobile health services. As a result, the mayor is proud to point out that they’ve reduced homelessness by more than 20 % from 2022 to 2024.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sean Washington \u003c/strong>[00:05:39] What, I guess, is the fear here that you’re hearing, especially from advocates of the unhoused?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:05:45] For a lot of people, this ordinance came as a bit of a shock.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vivian Wan \u003c/strong>[00:05:51] It’s a sweeping ban that criminalizes homelessness.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:05:56] I talked to Vivian Wan. She’s the CEO of Abode Services. They’re a provider that runs a shelter and some other housing programs in Fremont.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vivian Wan \u003c/strong>[00:06:04] We have decades of evidence that that bans like this don’t actually solve homelessness and they actually don’t help cities and communities either.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:06:14] She was very worried that just performing core job functions like handing out water, blankets, things that her outreach workers do all the time could violate this law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vivian Wan \u003c/strong>[00:06:29] If we don’t disclose where someone is sleeping outside, would that be concealing? So it’s just so egregious in every way.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:06:38] Legal experts and advocates, services providers all talked about how vague the language in this ordinance is, right? They said your intentions, no matter how clearly you council members or you police chief or you city attorney say that the intention of this ordinance is to do one thing, the ordinance will be interpreted by courts based on the language that is in it. The language is so broad that people find that very scary.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vivian Wan \u003c/strong>[00:07:14] Yeah, and I guess as someone who knows very intimately what homelessness looks like in Fremont as someone who’s working with unhoused folks, what do people like Vivian think the city should be doing instead?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:07:29] She points to research evidence that laws like this can have a cascade of negative consequences.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vivian Wan \u003c/strong>[00:07:38] People are going to be moving more and not actually working towards their housing goals, you know, hiding more, more scared to actually, you know, get services and move towards housing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:07:49] People talk about the stress of constantly moving as really destabilizing for people living on the streets, right? That that can exacerbate mental health problems, it can worsen addiction and that pushing people to more hidden areas takes them away from services. Providers could make it harder for outreach workers to find them. And that can be really harmful in terms of a person’s progress towards finding housing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vivian Wan \u003c/strong>[00:08:20] It’s not that people don’t want to come inside and you need a stick to get people come inside. There is a lack of resources, a lack of a lack of housing resources. And if there is a ban, it’s not going to solve either one of those.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vivian Wan \u003c/strong>[00:08:37] I mean, what have you heard from people who live in Fremont about how they’re feeling about this idea?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:08:47] At this time, we will open the floor for public comment. How many cards do we have?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:08:53] One hundred and ninety four.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:08:55] Okay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:08:56] Yeah, there were more than 70 people who spoke during public comment at this meeting. And there were many, many more who wanted to speak, but didn’t get the chance because of the time limit that was imposed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:09:08] Have personally supported homeless outreach efforts. And I believe in compassionate solutions, but allowing encampments is not a solution. It’s neglect.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:09:17] And the people who spoke in favor of this law were really appealing to the council to deal with trash and noise and loose dogs. They talked about not being able to open their windows because of campfire smoke from encampments. They complained about parking lots that reek of urine and people showering in their yards or stealing stuff out of their backyards.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:09:43] My neighbor has people defecate their front porch, their door continuously for two weeks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:09:55] There were also business owners who talked about their customers complaining to them about encampments surrounding the businesses or just deciding not to patronize those businesses. The public appeared to be deeply divided because a lot of people also spoke during public comment against this ordinance.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:10:16] I have sympathy for the businesses and residents experiencing the negative effects of some of the unhoused, but most unhoused folks are not creating these problems.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:10:27] Criminalizing the unhoused and those who help them is inhumane and wrong in every way for a city that claims to be compassionate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:10:41] I mean, so a lot of competing opinions here, it sounds like, but how did the council ultimately vote on this ordinance, Vanessa?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:10:50] After about four and a half hours, they passed it six to one. It was just the vice mayor, Desiree Campbell, who voted against it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:11:02] Well, Vanessa, I want to step back just a little bit and just ask you, I mean, why is this happening in Fremont and why is this happening, I guess, now?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:11:14] As you probably remember, last summer, the Supreme Court ruled that enforcing laws banning public camping is not a violation of the constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. So cities can fine and jail people under these laws, whether or not there’s alternative shelter available. And a lot of officials, including Governor Newsom, a lot of mayors around California, really welcomed this decision because they said it was going to allow them to do more to clean up encampments.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:11:55] Zooming in on Fremont, it’s also one of those cities in the Bay Area that doesn’t have enough shelter beds for the number of people who are, in fact, houseless, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:12:05] That’s right. So city staff went over shelter figures at this city council meeting. And according to them, there are 111 year -round shelter beds in the city, plus another 18 reserved for victims of domestic violence. And at the last point in time count, there were around 800 people experiencing homelessness in the city. 600 of those are unsheltered.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:12:34] That doesn’t seem particularly unique, but what is your sense of why this is happening in Fremont in particular?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:12:43] The city has a new mayor, Raj Salwan. He was elected in November and he ran on the promise of change and common sense solutions. So he pitched himself as kind of a problem solver. And homelessness and public safety were among his top issues.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Raj Salwan \u003c/strong>[00:13:01] You know, frankly, this is complaint driven. So nobody’s going to go around trying to see if somebody’s sleeping outdoors. That’s not the goal. The goal is to address the health and safety risks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:13:11] He told me when I interviewed him that his constituents talk about homelessness a lot, but it’s like one of the things that they most want addressed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Raj Salwan \u003c/strong>[00:13:22] And we’ve heard concerns about fires and safety and dogs running wild. So we just need a little bit of a code of conduct to kind of rein things in a little bit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:13:36] He acknowledged that it’s not a solution. He said the city would continue to invest in services and shelter and affordable housing, but he talked about wanting to do something for his constituents who have so many complaints about homeless encampments.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Raj Salwan \u003c/strong>[00:14:00] This is what our community is seeking. They want to help our unhoused individuals, but they also want to be able to walk to their normal park and feel safe. And so that’s kind of what we’re trying to do.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:14:18] What do unhoused people that you spoke with say about how they’re feeling about this ordinance and what it’s going to mean for them?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:14:26] I went to an encampment at the edge of the city. It’s along this creek. And one of the people I talked to was a woman named Jasmine Grijalva.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jasmine Grijalva \u003c/strong>[00:14:34] It’s just kind of bizonk though for them to try to tell us that we don’t have the right to try to figure out how we’re going to live.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:14:42] She estimated there are around 30 people living around this creek, and she said that they had ended up there because it was sort of hidden.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jasmine Grijalva \u003c/strong>[00:14:51] What are we supposed to do? Just stand around on corners or in front of the stores or in making beds in front of the stores? They don’t want that either. So where do we go?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:15:02] She appealed to people to recognize the humanity of unhoused people and to try to find a way to live in harmony with people who, in her view, don’t have another option. They don’t have an option to be indoors.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jasmine Grijalva \u003c/strong>[00:15:20] They don’t like looking at us. They don’t want to deal with us. But we’re also, we’re humans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:15:29] Often I hear unhoused people talk about the idea of sanctioned encampments, you know, some sort of safe space where they can continue to live outside in community, but not worry about being policed and pushed from place to place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jasmine Grijalva \u003c/strong>[00:15:46] If you’re going to kick us out, give us somewhere else that we can be at. Give us something. Don’t just take it all away.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:15:59] Seems like it’s not necessarily about one person, one new city leader, sort of trying to push this forward, but really a reflection of what people in Fremont want and sort of where they’re at and how they want the city to deal with homelessness. And it seems like people are asking for more punitive measures here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:16:30] I mean, there was just this proliferation of public, of visible homelessness during COVID and the cities repeatedly were often were blaming court rulings for tying their hands when it came to addressing these encampments. So as soon as they got the opening from the Supreme Court, they really moved to crack down. And a big part of that does have to do with public frustration.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": null,
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1740098355,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": true,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 65,
"wordCount": 2656
},
"headData": {
"title": "Fremont Passes California’s Most Extreme Encampment Ban | KQED",
"description": "Cities across California are cracking down on homeless encampments following a Supreme Court ruling last year giving local governments the O.K. to do so. Fremont recently took a bigger step than most, by also prohibiting anyone from “aiding and abetting” camping on public property and private land. Some members of the KQED podcast team are represented by The Screen Actors Guild, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. San Francisco Northern California Local. This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors. Ericka Cruz Guevarra Fremont now has one of, it seems like",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Fremont Passes California’s Most Extreme Encampment Ban",
"datePublished": "2025-02-19T03:00:31-08:00",
"dateModified": "2025-02-20T16:39:15-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"source": "The Bay",
"sourceUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/thebay",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC1651500540.mp3?updated=1739914086",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12027571",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12027571/fremont-passes-californias-most-extreme-encampment-ban",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Cities across California are cracking down on homeless encampments following a Supreme Court ruling last year giving local governments the O.K. to do so. Fremont recently took a bigger step than most, by also prohibiting anyone from “aiding and abetting” camping on public property and private land. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC1651500540\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Some members of the KQED podcast team are represented by The Screen Actors Guild, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. San Francisco Northern California Local.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:16] Fremont now has one of, it seems like the most extreme camping bans in California is how I’ve seen it described. What would this ban, this ordinance that the city just passed, what would it do exactly?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:01:30] So the basics are that it bans camping on public property citywide. It also bans camping on private property, and that includes residential property for more than three consecutive nights. The piece that’s really alarmed some people is that it prohibits anyone from, “permitting, aiding, abetting, or concealing camping” on any of that property. A violation of the ordinance is punishable by up to six months in jail or a fine of up to $1 ,000.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:02:14] Oh, wow. Okay, so when I hear aiding and abetting, I mean, are we talking about people giving a homeless person a blanket or having someone couch surf in your house? Like, what exactly do we mean when we say aiding and abetting?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:02:38] Well, it’s very unclear in the language of the ordinance itself, which is one of the huge issues that a lot of people have with this ordinance. City officials say that they intend to apply it narrowly, but that language is not in the ordinance itself.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:03:03] I mean, Vanessa, has there ever been a camping ban quite like this in California, like the one Fremont just passed?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:03:09] So the legal experts I talked to say no. There are certainly laws that ban camping on public property anytime, anywhere, but certainly in California, they say that there is no camping ban that includes this sort of aiding and abetting language.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:03:31] When you hear from city officials about why they passed this ordinance, I mean, how do they talk about the intention here? What do city leaders say about that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:03:42] Good evening, everybody. I’d like to call the city council meeting to order for February 12th.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:03:49] At the city council meeting where council members were considering adopting this ordinance, they brought out a number of city officials to answer their questions. So the head of economic development spoke about some of the impacts of homelessness on the business community. People in charge of homelessness services laid out all of the city’s different efforts around homelessness and the amount of money being spent, which they said is roughly around $8 million a year. And the chief of police, Sean Washington, spoke about how he intended for his officers to use this ordinance, like how they would enforce it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sean Washington \u003c/strong>[00:04:33] The intent will never be to arrest someone for being unhoused. And in fact, our policies prohibit us from doing that. This ordinance is another tool to bring some balance to where there’s conflict or a hazard or a safety concern to our community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:04:59] They frame it as an attempt to take a, quote, balanced approach to dealing with homelessness. So they point out all of the investments that the city has made in providing services, roughly $8 million a year, rental assistance, financial coaching. I mean, there’s mobile health services. As a result, the mayor is proud to point out that they’ve reduced homelessness by more than 20 % from 2022 to 2024.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sean Washington \u003c/strong>[00:05:39] What, I guess, is the fear here that you’re hearing, especially from advocates of the unhoused?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:05:45] For a lot of people, this ordinance came as a bit of a shock.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vivian Wan \u003c/strong>[00:05:51] It’s a sweeping ban that criminalizes homelessness.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:05:56] I talked to Vivian Wan. She’s the CEO of Abode Services. They’re a provider that runs a shelter and some other housing programs in Fremont.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vivian Wan \u003c/strong>[00:06:04] We have decades of evidence that that bans like this don’t actually solve homelessness and they actually don’t help cities and communities either.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:06:14] She was very worried that just performing core job functions like handing out water, blankets, things that her outreach workers do all the time could violate this law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vivian Wan \u003c/strong>[00:06:29] If we don’t disclose where someone is sleeping outside, would that be concealing? So it’s just so egregious in every way.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:06:38] Legal experts and advocates, services providers all talked about how vague the language in this ordinance is, right? They said your intentions, no matter how clearly you council members or you police chief or you city attorney say that the intention of this ordinance is to do one thing, the ordinance will be interpreted by courts based on the language that is in it. The language is so broad that people find that very scary.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vivian Wan \u003c/strong>[00:07:14] Yeah, and I guess as someone who knows very intimately what homelessness looks like in Fremont as someone who’s working with unhoused folks, what do people like Vivian think the city should be doing instead?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:07:29] She points to research evidence that laws like this can have a cascade of negative consequences.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vivian Wan \u003c/strong>[00:07:38] People are going to be moving more and not actually working towards their housing goals, you know, hiding more, more scared to actually, you know, get services and move towards housing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:07:49] People talk about the stress of constantly moving as really destabilizing for people living on the streets, right? That that can exacerbate mental health problems, it can worsen addiction and that pushing people to more hidden areas takes them away from services. Providers could make it harder for outreach workers to find them. And that can be really harmful in terms of a person’s progress towards finding housing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vivian Wan \u003c/strong>[00:08:20] It’s not that people don’t want to come inside and you need a stick to get people come inside. There is a lack of resources, a lack of a lack of housing resources. And if there is a ban, it’s not going to solve either one of those.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vivian Wan \u003c/strong>[00:08:37] I mean, what have you heard from people who live in Fremont about how they’re feeling about this idea?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:08:47] At this time, we will open the floor for public comment. How many cards do we have?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:08:53] One hundred and ninety four.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:08:55] Okay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:08:56] Yeah, there were more than 70 people who spoke during public comment at this meeting. And there were many, many more who wanted to speak, but didn’t get the chance because of the time limit that was imposed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:09:08] Have personally supported homeless outreach efforts. And I believe in compassionate solutions, but allowing encampments is not a solution. It’s neglect.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:09:17] And the people who spoke in favor of this law were really appealing to the council to deal with trash and noise and loose dogs. They talked about not being able to open their windows because of campfire smoke from encampments. They complained about parking lots that reek of urine and people showering in their yards or stealing stuff out of their backyards.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:09:43] My neighbor has people defecate their front porch, their door continuously for two weeks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:09:55] There were also business owners who talked about their customers complaining to them about encampments surrounding the businesses or just deciding not to patronize those businesses. The public appeared to be deeply divided because a lot of people also spoke during public comment against this ordinance.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:10:16] I have sympathy for the businesses and residents experiencing the negative effects of some of the unhoused, but most unhoused folks are not creating these problems.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>City Council Meeting \u003c/strong>[00:10:27] Criminalizing the unhoused and those who help them is inhumane and wrong in every way for a city that claims to be compassionate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:10:41] I mean, so a lot of competing opinions here, it sounds like, but how did the council ultimately vote on this ordinance, Vanessa?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:10:50] After about four and a half hours, they passed it six to one. It was just the vice mayor, Desiree Campbell, who voted against it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:11:02] Well, Vanessa, I want to step back just a little bit and just ask you, I mean, why is this happening in Fremont and why is this happening, I guess, now?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:11:14] As you probably remember, last summer, the Supreme Court ruled that enforcing laws banning public camping is not a violation of the constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. So cities can fine and jail people under these laws, whether or not there’s alternative shelter available. And a lot of officials, including Governor Newsom, a lot of mayors around California, really welcomed this decision because they said it was going to allow them to do more to clean up encampments.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:11:55] Zooming in on Fremont, it’s also one of those cities in the Bay Area that doesn’t have enough shelter beds for the number of people who are, in fact, houseless, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:12:05] That’s right. So city staff went over shelter figures at this city council meeting. And according to them, there are 111 year -round shelter beds in the city, plus another 18 reserved for victims of domestic violence. And at the last point in time count, there were around 800 people experiencing homelessness in the city. 600 of those are unsheltered.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:12:34] That doesn’t seem particularly unique, but what is your sense of why this is happening in Fremont in particular?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:12:43] The city has a new mayor, Raj Salwan. He was elected in November and he ran on the promise of change and common sense solutions. So he pitched himself as kind of a problem solver. And homelessness and public safety were among his top issues.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Raj Salwan \u003c/strong>[00:13:01] You know, frankly, this is complaint driven. So nobody’s going to go around trying to see if somebody’s sleeping outdoors. That’s not the goal. The goal is to address the health and safety risks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:13:11] He told me when I interviewed him that his constituents talk about homelessness a lot, but it’s like one of the things that they most want addressed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Raj Salwan \u003c/strong>[00:13:22] And we’ve heard concerns about fires and safety and dogs running wild. So we just need a little bit of a code of conduct to kind of rein things in a little bit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:13:36] He acknowledged that it’s not a solution. He said the city would continue to invest in services and shelter and affordable housing, but he talked about wanting to do something for his constituents who have so many complaints about homeless encampments.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Raj Salwan \u003c/strong>[00:14:00] This is what our community is seeking. They want to help our unhoused individuals, but they also want to be able to walk to their normal park and feel safe. And so that’s kind of what we’re trying to do.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:14:18] What do unhoused people that you spoke with say about how they’re feeling about this ordinance and what it’s going to mean for them?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:14:26] I went to an encampment at the edge of the city. It’s along this creek. And one of the people I talked to was a woman named Jasmine Grijalva.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jasmine Grijalva \u003c/strong>[00:14:34] It’s just kind of bizonk though for them to try to tell us that we don’t have the right to try to figure out how we’re going to live.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:14:42] She estimated there are around 30 people living around this creek, and she said that they had ended up there because it was sort of hidden.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jasmine Grijalva \u003c/strong>[00:14:51] What are we supposed to do? Just stand around on corners or in front of the stores or in making beds in front of the stores? They don’t want that either. So where do we go?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:15:02] She appealed to people to recognize the humanity of unhoused people and to try to find a way to live in harmony with people who, in her view, don’t have another option. They don’t have an option to be indoors.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jasmine Grijalva \u003c/strong>[00:15:20] They don’t like looking at us. They don’t want to deal with us. But we’re also, we’re humans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:15:29] Often I hear unhoused people talk about the idea of sanctioned encampments, you know, some sort of safe space where they can continue to live outside in community, but not worry about being policed and pushed from place to place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jasmine Grijalva \u003c/strong>[00:15:46] If you’re going to kick us out, give us somewhere else that we can be at. Give us something. Don’t just take it all away.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:15:59] Seems like it’s not necessarily about one person, one new city leader, sort of trying to push this forward, but really a reflection of what people in Fremont want and sort of where they’re at and how they want the city to deal with homelessness. And it seems like people are asking for more punitive measures here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vanessa Rancaño \u003c/strong>[00:16:30] I mean, there was just this proliferation of public, of visible homelessness during COVID and the cities repeatedly were often were blaming court rulings for tying their hands when it came to addressing these encampments. So as soon as they got the opening from the Supreme Court, they really moved to crack down. And a big part of that does have to do with public frustration.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12027571/fremont-passes-californias-most-extreme-encampment-ban",
"authors": [
"8654",
"11831",
"11939",
"11724",
"11276"
],
"categories": [
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_66",
"news_21214",
"news_33812",
"news_932",
"news_22598"
],
"featImg": "news_12026494",
"label": "source_news_12027571"
},
"news_12016282": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12016282",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12016282",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1733169612000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "california-bill-would-give-public-university-admission-priority-to-slaves-descendants",
"title": "California Bill Would Give Public University Admission Priority to Descendants of Slaves",
"publishDate": 1733169612,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "California Bill Would Give Public University Admission Priority to Descendants of Slaves | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>A California lawmaker said he will introduce a bill on Monday that would give admission priority to the descendants of slaves at the University of California and California State University, the state’s two large public university systems.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Democrat who represents parts of Los Angeles, told \u003cem>The Associated Press\u003c/em> he will introduce the bill as lawmakers meet in the Capitol to swear in new members for a new legislative session. They also will convene a special session to consider ways to protect the state’s progressive policies ahead of another Trump administration.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump is expected to make dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion programs a priority. Around the U.S., a conservative movement to limit DEI initiatives has been gaining momentum in state capitals and college governing boards, with officials in many states taking action against them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The movement gained momentum last year after the Supreme Court’s decision to end affirmative action at universities, which created a new legal landscape around diversity programs in the workplace and civil society.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But DEI’s emergence as a political rallying cry also has its roots on campus, with Republican opponents saying the programs are discriminatory and promote left-wing ideology. Trump has hinted at potential legislation to fine universities over diversity initiatives.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the same time, legacy admissions, long seen as a perk for the white and wealthy at selective colleges, have come under fire in recent years following the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action. By banning affirmative action but allowing legacy preferences, which favor the children of alumni and donors, critics say the court left admissions even more lopsided against students of color.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“For decades, universities gave preferential admission treatment to donors and their family members, while others tied to legacies of harm were ignored and at times outright excluded,” Bryan told the AP. “We have a moral responsibility to do all we can to right those wrongs.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[aside label='Related Coverage' tag='reparations']\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Bryan said he is hopeful for approval of the measure, which is in line with recommendations developed by members of California’s Black Reparations Task Force.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“There is a growing understanding of California’s role in perpetuating the inequalities that arose from slavery, and there’s a willingness to try to rectify that harm, to heal that harm,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Black students made up about 4% of the California State University’s student population and about 4.7% at the University of California in 2023, according to the university systems’ latest reports.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The proposal follows reparations efforts at the state level that have yielded mixed results. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law in September to formally apologize for the state’s legacy of racism and discrimination against Black residents.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But state lawmakers blocked a bill that would have created an agency to administer reparations programs, and Newsom vetoed a proposal that would have helped Black families reclaim property that was seized unjustly by the government through eminent domain.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier this month, California voters also rejected a ballot measure that would have amended the state constitution to ban forced prison labor, squashing another proposal championed by Bryan and other members of the California Legislative Black Caucus.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12002657\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 2560px\">\u003ca href=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-scaled.jpg\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-12002657 size-full\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-scaled.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2560\" height=\"1920\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-scaled.jpg 2560w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-800x600.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-1020x765.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-160x120.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-1536x1152.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-2048x1536.jpg 2048w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-1920x1440.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (right) talks to members of Coalition for a Just and Equitable California about two reparations bills in the rotunda on the last day of the legislative year, Saturday, Aug. 31, 2024, in Sacramento. \u003ccite>(Tran Nguyen/AP Photo)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The purpose of the measure is to rectify past and current discrimination at universities, Bryan said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“When folks think about reparations, they think about just cash payments. But repairing the harm and the inequality that came from slavery and the policies thereafter is a much bigger process,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Bryan said he also proposed the measure, which will have to go through a monthslong legislative approval process, in part to respond to Trump’s recent statements about paying “reparations” to white students that he said have been affected by diversity, equity and inclusion programs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>States, including Kansas and Iowa, passed laws banning DEI offices and initiatives in higher education, and Republican lawmakers in about two dozen states proposed at least 50 bills to restrict DEI programs last year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Trump’s incoming deputy chief of policy will be his former adviser, Stephen Miller, who leads a group called America First Legal that has aggressively challenged corporate DEI policies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Trump, who has vowed to rid America’s schools of perceived “ wokeness,” also has plans to cut funding for schools that defy him on a multitude of issues on his first day in office, though even some of his supporters say he lacks the authority to make such swift and sweeping changes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11990718\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003ca href=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/ucberkeley20140213.jpg\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-11990718 size-full\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/ucberkeley20140213.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1279\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/ucberkeley20140213.jpg 1920w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/ucberkeley20140213-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/ucberkeley20140213-1020x679.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/ucberkeley20140213-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/ucberkeley20140213-1536x1023.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">UC Berkeley students walk through Sproul Plaza on the UC Berkeley campus on April 23, 2012, in Berkeley, California. \u003ccite>(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Trump has heaped scorn on the federal Department of Education, describing it as infiltrated by “radicals, zealots and Marxists.” He has picked Linda McMahon, a former wrestling executive, to lead the department.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But like many conservative politicians before him, Trump also has called for dismantling the department altogether, a cumbersome task that likely would require action from Congress.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "A California lawmaker proposed a bill to give admission priority to the descendants of slaves at the University of California and California State University.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1738109843,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 24,
"wordCount": 901
},
"headData": {
"title": "California Bill Would Give Public University Admission Priority to Descendants of Slaves | KQED",
"description": "A California lawmaker proposed a bill to give admission priority to the descendants of slaves at the University of California and California State University.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "California Bill Would Give Public University Admission Priority to Descendants of Slaves",
"datePublished": "2024-12-02T12:00:12-08:00",
"dateModified": "2025-01-28T16:17:23-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"nprByline": "Sophie Austin, Trân Nguyễn and Olga R. Rodriguez, Associated Press",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"showOnAuthorArchivePages": "No",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12016282/california-bill-would-give-public-university-admission-priority-to-slaves-descendants",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>A California lawmaker said he will introduce a bill on Monday that would give admission priority to the descendants of slaves at the University of California and California State University, the state’s two large public university systems.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Democrat who represents parts of Los Angeles, told \u003cem>The Associated Press\u003c/em> he will introduce the bill as lawmakers meet in the Capitol to swear in new members for a new legislative session. They also will convene a special session to consider ways to protect the state’s progressive policies ahead of another Trump administration.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump is expected to make dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion programs a priority. Around the U.S., a conservative movement to limit DEI initiatives has been gaining momentum in state capitals and college governing boards, with officials in many states taking action against them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The movement gained momentum last year after the Supreme Court’s decision to end affirmative action at universities, which created a new legal landscape around diversity programs in the workplace and civil society.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But DEI’s emergence as a political rallying cry also has its roots on campus, with Republican opponents saying the programs are discriminatory and promote left-wing ideology. Trump has hinted at potential legislation to fine universities over diversity initiatives.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the same time, legacy admissions, long seen as a perk for the white and wealthy at selective colleges, have come under fire in recent years following the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action. By banning affirmative action but allowing legacy preferences, which favor the children of alumni and donors, critics say the court left admissions even more lopsided against students of color.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“For decades, universities gave preferential admission treatment to donors and their family members, while others tied to legacies of harm were ignored and at times outright excluded,” Bryan told the AP. “We have a moral responsibility to do all we can to right those wrongs.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "Related Coverage ",
"tag": "reparations"
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Bryan said he is hopeful for approval of the measure, which is in line with recommendations developed by members of California’s Black Reparations Task Force.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“There is a growing understanding of California’s role in perpetuating the inequalities that arose from slavery, and there’s a willingness to try to rectify that harm, to heal that harm,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Black students made up about 4% of the California State University’s student population and about 4.7% at the University of California in 2023, according to the university systems’ latest reports.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The proposal follows reparations efforts at the state level that have yielded mixed results. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law in September to formally apologize for the state’s legacy of racism and discrimination against Black residents.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But state lawmakers blocked a bill that would have created an agency to administer reparations programs, and Newsom vetoed a proposal that would have helped Black families reclaim property that was seized unjustly by the government through eminent domain.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier this month, California voters also rejected a ballot measure that would have amended the state constitution to ban forced prison labor, squashing another proposal championed by Bryan and other members of the California Legislative Black Caucus.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12002657\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 2560px\">\u003ca href=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-scaled.jpg\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-12002657 size-full\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-scaled.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2560\" height=\"1920\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-scaled.jpg 2560w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-800x600.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-1020x765.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-160x120.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-1536x1152.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-2048x1536.jpg 2048w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/08/AP24244812299639-1920x1440.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (right) talks to members of Coalition for a Just and Equitable California about two reparations bills in the rotunda on the last day of the legislative year, Saturday, Aug. 31, 2024, in Sacramento. \u003ccite>(Tran Nguyen/AP Photo)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The purpose of the measure is to rectify past and current discrimination at universities, Bryan said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“When folks think about reparations, they think about just cash payments. But repairing the harm and the inequality that came from slavery and the policies thereafter is a much bigger process,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Bryan said he also proposed the measure, which will have to go through a monthslong legislative approval process, in part to respond to Trump’s recent statements about paying “reparations” to white students that he said have been affected by diversity, equity and inclusion programs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>States, including Kansas and Iowa, passed laws banning DEI offices and initiatives in higher education, and Republican lawmakers in about two dozen states proposed at least 50 bills to restrict DEI programs last year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Trump’s incoming deputy chief of policy will be his former adviser, Stephen Miller, who leads a group called America First Legal that has aggressively challenged corporate DEI policies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Trump, who has vowed to rid America’s schools of perceived “ wokeness,” also has plans to cut funding for schools that defy him on a multitude of issues on his first day in office, though even some of his supporters say he lacks the authority to make such swift and sweeping changes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11990718\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003ca href=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/ucberkeley20140213.jpg\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-11990718 size-full\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/ucberkeley20140213.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1279\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/ucberkeley20140213.jpg 1920w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/ucberkeley20140213-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/ucberkeley20140213-1020x679.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/ucberkeley20140213-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/ucberkeley20140213-1536x1023.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">UC Berkeley students walk through Sproul Plaza on the UC Berkeley campus on April 23, 2012, in Berkeley, California. \u003ccite>(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Trump has heaped scorn on the federal Department of Education, describing it as infiltrated by “radicals, zealots and Marxists.” He has picked Linda McMahon, a former wrestling executive, to lead the department.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But like many conservative politicians before him, Trump also has called for dismantling the department altogether, a cumbersome task that likely would require action from Congress.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12016282/california-bill-would-give-public-university-admission-priority-to-slaves-descendants",
"authors": [
"byline_news_12016282"
],
"categories": [
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_1895",
"news_18538",
"news_32395",
"news_20228",
"news_1323",
"news_20013",
"news_2923",
"news_95",
"news_22493",
"news_932",
"news_33765"
],
"featImg": "news_12004888",
"label": "news"
},
"news_11992777": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11992777",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11992777",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1719941741000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "extreme-court-puts-trump-above-the-law-in-immunity-ruling-california-democrats-say",
"title": "‘Extreme Court’ Puts Trump Above the Law In Immunity Ruling, California Democrats Say",
"publishDate": 1719941741,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "‘Extreme Court’ Puts Trump Above the Law In Immunity Ruling, California Democrats Say | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/tag/supreme-court\">Supreme Court\u003c/a>’s decision on Monday that presidents have presumptive immunity from prosecution for official acts after leaving office drew sharp words from elected Democrats in the Bay Area and California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Many agreed with the dissenting liberal justices who said the decision places presidents above the law. It was seen as \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11992718/supreme-court-hands-trump-a-major-win-does-it-undermine-democracy\">a major win for former President Trump\u003c/a> in the federal criminal case over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Rep. Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House during the second half of Trump’s presidency, said the Supreme Court had given Trump a “political gift” and had “gone rogue with its decision, violating the foundational American principle that no one is above the law.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The former president’s claim of total presidential immunity is an insult to the vision of our founders, who declared independence from a King,” Pelosi said \u003ca href=\"https://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/pelosi-statement-supreme-court-decision-violating-foundational-american\">in a statement\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Adam Schiff, who both served on the House Jan. 6 committee, sharply condemned the decision. Schiff said the decision was “far worse than anything I imagined.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It would be difficult to overstate how much this opinion shifts the balance of power away from Congress and towards the presidency and how unshackled a corrupt president will now be,” Schiff said \u003ca href=\"https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/statement-rep-schiff-slams-scotus-ruling-on-trumps-claims-of-presidential-immunity\">in a statement\u003c/a>. “The Court gives the president absolute power, and it will corrupt him, absolutely.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a Monday appearance on MSNBC, Lofgren noted that in last week’s \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11992512/the-aftermath-of-the-trump-biden-debate\">debate with President Biden\u003c/a>, Trump “would not commit to accepting the election results this November unless he won.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“So we’ve got a problem here if he cannot be accountable if any president cannot be held accountable under the laws that exist,” she said. “That’s a complete departure from our history.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Sen. Alex Padilla said \u003ca href=\"https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-statement-on-supreme-court-decision-granting-trump-partial-immunity-from-criminal-prosecution/\">in a statement\u003c/a> that the court “afforded future presidents carte blanche to abuse the powers of their office for political and personal gain and laid the foundation for Donald Trump to have absolute authority in a potential second term.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He cast the blame on Trump’s “handpicked justices,” a sentiment echoed by Rep. Anna Eshoo.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We don’t have an activist court; we have an extreme court,” Eshoo told KQED. “To read Justice Sotomayor’s dissent was enough to make any decent American weep. This Fourth of July will, I think, be the saddest of my life.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Notably, Rep. Eric Swalwell said special counsel Jack Smith will make the argument in the election interference case that Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 didn’t represent “official acts.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This is not a Trump victory,” he \u003ca href=\"https://x.com/RepSwalwell/status/1807808244263579789\">posted on X\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On this, he seemingly stands alone from his colleagues.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>KQED’s \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/author/csmith\">Caroline Smith\u003c/a> contributed to this report.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "The Supreme Court’s decision that former President Trump has immunity from prosecution for ‘official acts’ drew sharp words from elected Democrats in the Bay Area and California.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1738096090,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 17,
"wordCount": 496
},
"headData": {
"title": "‘Extreme Court’ Puts Trump Above the Law In Immunity Ruling, California Democrats Say | KQED",
"description": "The Supreme Court’s decision that former President Trump has immunity from prosecution for ‘official acts’ drew sharp words from elected Democrats in the Bay Area and California.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "‘Extreme Court’ Puts Trump Above the Law In Immunity Ruling, California Democrats Say",
"datePublished": "2024-07-02T10:35:41-07:00",
"dateModified": "2025-01-28T12:28:10-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-11992777",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11992777/extreme-court-puts-trump-above-the-law-in-immunity-ruling-california-democrats-say",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/tag/supreme-court\">Supreme Court\u003c/a>’s decision on Monday that presidents have presumptive immunity from prosecution for official acts after leaving office drew sharp words from elected Democrats in the Bay Area and California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Many agreed with the dissenting liberal justices who said the decision places presidents above the law. It was seen as \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11992718/supreme-court-hands-trump-a-major-win-does-it-undermine-democracy\">a major win for former President Trump\u003c/a> in the federal criminal case over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Rep. Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House during the second half of Trump’s presidency, said the Supreme Court had given Trump a “political gift” and had “gone rogue with its decision, violating the foundational American principle that no one is above the law.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The former president’s claim of total presidential immunity is an insult to the vision of our founders, who declared independence from a King,” Pelosi said \u003ca href=\"https://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/pelosi-statement-supreme-court-decision-violating-foundational-american\">in a statement\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Adam Schiff, who both served on the House Jan. 6 committee, sharply condemned the decision. Schiff said the decision was “far worse than anything I imagined.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It would be difficult to overstate how much this opinion shifts the balance of power away from Congress and towards the presidency and how unshackled a corrupt president will now be,” Schiff said \u003ca href=\"https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/statement-rep-schiff-slams-scotus-ruling-on-trumps-claims-of-presidential-immunity\">in a statement\u003c/a>. “The Court gives the president absolute power, and it will corrupt him, absolutely.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a Monday appearance on MSNBC, Lofgren noted that in last week’s \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11992512/the-aftermath-of-the-trump-biden-debate\">debate with President Biden\u003c/a>, Trump “would not commit to accepting the election results this November unless he won.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“So we’ve got a problem here if he cannot be accountable if any president cannot be held accountable under the laws that exist,” she said. “That’s a complete departure from our history.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Sen. Alex Padilla said \u003ca href=\"https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-statement-on-supreme-court-decision-granting-trump-partial-immunity-from-criminal-prosecution/\">in a statement\u003c/a> that the court “afforded future presidents carte blanche to abuse the powers of their office for political and personal gain and laid the foundation for Donald Trump to have absolute authority in a potential second term.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He cast the blame on Trump’s “handpicked justices,” a sentiment echoed by Rep. Anna Eshoo.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We don’t have an activist court; we have an extreme court,” Eshoo told KQED. “To read Justice Sotomayor’s dissent was enough to make any decent American weep. This Fourth of July will, I think, be the saddest of my life.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Notably, Rep. Eric Swalwell said special counsel Jack Smith will make the argument in the election interference case that Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 didn’t represent “official acts.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This is not a Trump victory,” he \u003ca href=\"https://x.com/RepSwalwell/status/1807808244263579789\">posted on X\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On this, he seemingly stands alone from his colleagues.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>KQED’s \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/author/csmith\">Caroline Smith\u003c/a> contributed to this report.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/11992777/extreme-court-puts-trump-above-the-law-in-immunity-ruling-california-democrats-say",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_1386",
"news_18538",
"news_20251",
"news_1323",
"news_717",
"news_17968",
"news_29111",
"news_932",
"news_18037"
],
"featImg": "news_11992793",
"label": "news"
},
"news_11981042": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11981042",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11981042",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1711585801000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "the-stakes-in-the-supreme-courts-abortion-pill-case",
"title": "The Stakes in the Supreme Court's Abortion Pill Case",
"publishDate": 1711585801,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "The Stakes in the Supreme Court’s Abortion Pill Case | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 33544,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The Supreme Court took up abortion access this week for the first since overturning Roe v. Wade two years ago. This time, they’re considering whether to restrict access to abortion pill mifepristone. Marisa talks with POLITICO health care reporter Alice Miranda Ollstein about what the conservative-led court might do. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": null,
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1723236124,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 3,
"wordCount": 56
},
"headData": {
"title": "The Stakes in the Supreme Court's Abortion Pill Case | KQED",
"description": "The Supreme Court took up abortion access this week for the first since overturning Roe v. Wade two years ago. This time, they're considering whether to restrict access to abortion pill mifepristone. Marisa talks with POLITICO health care reporter Alice Miranda Ollstein about what the conservative-led court might do. ",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "The Stakes in the Supreme Court's Abortion Pill Case",
"datePublished": "2024-03-27T17:30:01-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-08-09T13:42:04-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC9603780216.mp3?updated=1711579417",
"sticky": false,
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11981042/the-stakes-in-the-supreme-courts-abortion-pill-case",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The Supreme Court took up abortion access this week for the first since overturning Roe v. Wade two years ago. This time, they’re considering whether to restrict access to abortion pill mifepristone. Marisa talks with POLITICO health care reporter Alice Miranda Ollstein about what the conservative-led court might do. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/11981042/the-stakes-in-the-supreme-courts-abortion-pill-case",
"authors": [
"3239"
],
"programs": [
"news_33544"
],
"categories": [
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_866",
"news_23790",
"news_32839",
"news_22235",
"news_17968",
"news_201",
"news_932"
],
"featImg": "news_11981045",
"label": "news_33544"
},
"news_11980822": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11980822",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11980822",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1711489146000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1711489146,
"format": "standard",
"title": "Supreme Court Expected to Preserve Access to Abortion Medication Mifepristone",
"headTitle": "Supreme Court Expected to Preserve Access to Abortion Medication Mifepristone | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court\">Supreme Court\u003c/a> on Tuesday seemed likely to preserve access to a medication that was used in \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pills-mifepristone-supreme-court-27d18f91242eb08c4d805880ddb5bb60\">nearly two-thirds of all abortions\u003c/a> in the U.S. last year, in the court’s first abortion case since conservative justices \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0\">overturned Roe v. Wade\u003c/a> two years ago.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In nearly 90 minutes of arguments, a consensus appeared to emerge that the abortion opponents who challenged the FDA’s approval of the medication, mifepristone, and subsequent actions to ease access to it lack the legal right or standing to sue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Such a decision would leave in place the current rules that allow patients to receive the drug through the mail, without any need for an in-person visit with a doctor, and to take the medication to induce an abortion through 10 weeks of pregnancy. Should the court take the no-standing route, it would avoid the more politically sensitive aspects of the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The high court’s return to the abortion thicket is taking place in a political and regulatory landscape that was reshaped by its abortion decision in 2022 that led many Republican-led states to ban or severely restrict abortion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, said the court should dismiss the case and make clear that anti-abortion doctors and organizations don’t “come within 100 miles” of having standing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even three justices who were in the majority to overturn Roe posed skeptical questions about standing to the lawyer for the abortion opponents. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are former President Donald Trump’s three Supreme Court appointees.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Barrett, for example, seemed to doubt that the doctors identified by lawyer Erin Hawley could show that they were actually harmed by the FDA’s actions, one of the requirements for showing standing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The difficulty, to me, is that the affidavits do read more like conscience objections,” Barrett said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kavanaugh had only one question during the entire session and it too seemed to be focused on the technical issue of standing. He asked Prelogar to confirm that “under federal law, no doctors can be forced against their consciences to perform or assist in an abortion.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[aside postID=\"news_11980696,news_11973441,news_11958412\" label=\"Related Stories\"]Abortion opponents are asking the justices to ratify \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pill-restrictions-appeals-court-402be732d162af449c40ed1315cfb851\">a ruling\u003c/a> from a conservative federal appeals court that would limit access to mifepristone, one of two \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/mifepristone-supreme-court-abortion-d451e14148ffbe6ce4811b1a37651480\">drugs used in medication abortions\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That ruling had immediate political consequences, and the outcome in the current case, expected by early summer, could affect races for Congress and the White House.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Another abortion case is already on the docket. Next month, the justices will hear arguments over whether \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-medical-emergencies-idaho-8ca89d7de0c1fa9256dcd27d1847e144\">a federal law on emergency treatment \u003c/a>at hospitals must include abortions, even in states that have otherwise banned them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The scene outside the Supreme Court was lively Tuesday morning, with demonstrators occupying the streets surrounding the court and groups on both sides of the issue marching and chanting. The police also blocked traffic surrounding the court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The practical consequences of a ruling for abortion opponents would be dramatic, including possibly halting the delivery of mifepristone through the mail and at large pharmacy chains and ending increasingly popular telehealth visits at which the drug can be prescribed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>President Joe Biden’s administration and drug manufacturers warn that such an outcome could also undermine the FDA’s drug approval process more widely by inviting judges to second-guess the agency’s scientific judgments. The Democratic administration and New York-based Danco Laboratories, which makes mifepristone, say that the \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/mifepristone-abortion-pill-supreme-court-1d2221251197a391c9bca833918e4554\">drug is among the safest\u003c/a> the FDA has ever approved.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee who joined the court just after the last abortion case, signaled her agreement with some of those arguments when she asked Jessica Ellsworth, Danco’s lawyer, whether she has concerns “about judges parsing medical and scientific studies.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The abortion opponents argue that the FDA’s decisions in 2016 and 2021 to relax restrictions on getting the drug were unreasonable and, as Hawley wrote in her clients’ main legal brief, “jeopardize women’s health across the nation.” She argued Tuesday that she was asking the court to affirm a ruling that “merely restored long-standing and crucial protections under which millions of women used abortion drugs.” Her husband, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, and one of their children were in the courtroom to watch her first arguments.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The mifepristone case began five months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Abortion opponents initially won a sweeping ruling nearly a year ago from \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/texas-judge-matthew-kacsmaryk-abortion-pill-fda-75964b777ef09593a1ad948c6cfc0237\">U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk\u003c/a>, a Trump nominee in Texas, which would have revoked the drug’s approval entirely. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals left intact the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone. However, it would reverse the changes that regulators made in 2016 and 2021, which eased some of the conditions for administering the drug.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court put the appeals court’s modified ruling on hold, then agreed to hear the case, though Justices Samuel Alito, the author of the decision overturning Roe, and Clarence Thomas would have allowed some restrictions to take effect while the case proceeded.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In arguments highly focused on technical legal issues, Alito and Thomas asked some of the few questions Tuesday on the substance of the case, including about sending mifepristone through the mail.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They referred to the Comstock Act, a rarely used, 151-year-old criminal law that has been revived by anti-abortion advocates seeking to block the delivery of mifepristone through the U.S. mail. Addressing Ellsworth, Thomas said the law is “fairly broad, and it specifically covers drugs such as yours.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even if the court doesn’t address the Comstock Act in its ruling, some abortion rights advocates fear that a future administration that favors abortion restrictions could invoke the law to roll back access to mifepristone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Mifepristone is one of two drugs, along with misoprostol, used in medication abortions. Their numbers have been rising for years. More than 6 million people have used mifepristone since 2000. \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/mifepristone-supreme-court-abortion-d451e14148ffbe6ce4811b1a37651480\">Mifepristone\u003c/a> is taken first to dilate the cervix and block the hormone progesterone, which is needed to sustain a pregnancy. Misoprostol is taken 24 to 48 hours later, causing the uterus to contract and expel pregnancy tissue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Health care providers have said that if mifepristone is no longer available or is too hard to obtain, they would switch to using only misoprostol, which is somewhat less effective in ending pregnancies.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1118,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 26
},
"modified": 1711566453,
"excerpt": "The Supreme Court seems likely to preserve access to a medication that was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. last year, in the court’s first abortion case since conservative justices overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The Supreme Court seems likely to preserve access to a medication that was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. last year, in the court’s first abortion case since conservative justices overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago.",
"title": "Supreme Court Expected to Preserve Access to Abortion Medication Mifepristone | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Supreme Court Expected to Preserve Access to Abortion Medication Mifepristone",
"datePublished": "2024-03-26T14:39:06-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-03-27T12:07:33-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-court-expected-to-preserve-access-to-abortion-medication-mifepristone",
"status": "publish",
"nprByline": "Mark Sherman \u003cbr> Associated Press",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"sticky": false,
"showOnAuthorArchivePages": "No",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11980822/supreme-court-expected-to-preserve-access-to-abortion-medication-mifepristone",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court\">Supreme Court\u003c/a> on Tuesday seemed likely to preserve access to a medication that was used in \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pills-mifepristone-supreme-court-27d18f91242eb08c4d805880ddb5bb60\">nearly two-thirds of all abortions\u003c/a> in the U.S. last year, in the court’s first abortion case since conservative justices \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0\">overturned Roe v. Wade\u003c/a> two years ago.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In nearly 90 minutes of arguments, a consensus appeared to emerge that the abortion opponents who challenged the FDA’s approval of the medication, mifepristone, and subsequent actions to ease access to it lack the legal right or standing to sue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Such a decision would leave in place the current rules that allow patients to receive the drug through the mail, without any need for an in-person visit with a doctor, and to take the medication to induce an abortion through 10 weeks of pregnancy. Should the court take the no-standing route, it would avoid the more politically sensitive aspects of the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The high court’s return to the abortion thicket is taking place in a political and regulatory landscape that was reshaped by its abortion decision in 2022 that led many Republican-led states to ban or severely restrict abortion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, said the court should dismiss the case and make clear that anti-abortion doctors and organizations don’t “come within 100 miles” of having standing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even three justices who were in the majority to overturn Roe posed skeptical questions about standing to the lawyer for the abortion opponents. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are former President Donald Trump’s three Supreme Court appointees.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Barrett, for example, seemed to doubt that the doctors identified by lawyer Erin Hawley could show that they were actually harmed by the FDA’s actions, one of the requirements for showing standing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The difficulty, to me, is that the affidavits do read more like conscience objections,” Barrett said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kavanaugh had only one question during the entire session and it too seemed to be focused on the technical issue of standing. He asked Prelogar to confirm that “under federal law, no doctors can be forced against their consciences to perform or assist in an abortion.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_11980696,news_11973441,news_11958412",
"label": "Related Stories "
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>Abortion opponents are asking the justices to ratify \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pill-restrictions-appeals-court-402be732d162af449c40ed1315cfb851\">a ruling\u003c/a> from a conservative federal appeals court that would limit access to mifepristone, one of two \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/mifepristone-supreme-court-abortion-d451e14148ffbe6ce4811b1a37651480\">drugs used in medication abortions\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That ruling had immediate political consequences, and the outcome in the current case, expected by early summer, could affect races for Congress and the White House.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Another abortion case is already on the docket. Next month, the justices will hear arguments over whether \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-medical-emergencies-idaho-8ca89d7de0c1fa9256dcd27d1847e144\">a federal law on emergency treatment \u003c/a>at hospitals must include abortions, even in states that have otherwise banned them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The scene outside the Supreme Court was lively Tuesday morning, with demonstrators occupying the streets surrounding the court and groups on both sides of the issue marching and chanting. The police also blocked traffic surrounding the court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The practical consequences of a ruling for abortion opponents would be dramatic, including possibly halting the delivery of mifepristone through the mail and at large pharmacy chains and ending increasingly popular telehealth visits at which the drug can be prescribed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>President Joe Biden’s administration and drug manufacturers warn that such an outcome could also undermine the FDA’s drug approval process more widely by inviting judges to second-guess the agency’s scientific judgments. The Democratic administration and New York-based Danco Laboratories, which makes mifepristone, say that the \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/mifepristone-abortion-pill-supreme-court-1d2221251197a391c9bca833918e4554\">drug is among the safest\u003c/a> the FDA has ever approved.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee who joined the court just after the last abortion case, signaled her agreement with some of those arguments when she asked Jessica Ellsworth, Danco’s lawyer, whether she has concerns “about judges parsing medical and scientific studies.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The abortion opponents argue that the FDA’s decisions in 2016 and 2021 to relax restrictions on getting the drug were unreasonable and, as Hawley wrote in her clients’ main legal brief, “jeopardize women’s health across the nation.” She argued Tuesday that she was asking the court to affirm a ruling that “merely restored long-standing and crucial protections under which millions of women used abortion drugs.” Her husband, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, and one of their children were in the courtroom to watch her first arguments.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The mifepristone case began five months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Abortion opponents initially won a sweeping ruling nearly a year ago from \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/texas-judge-matthew-kacsmaryk-abortion-pill-fda-75964b777ef09593a1ad948c6cfc0237\">U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk\u003c/a>, a Trump nominee in Texas, which would have revoked the drug’s approval entirely. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals left intact the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone. However, it would reverse the changes that regulators made in 2016 and 2021, which eased some of the conditions for administering the drug.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court put the appeals court’s modified ruling on hold, then agreed to hear the case, though Justices Samuel Alito, the author of the decision overturning Roe, and Clarence Thomas would have allowed some restrictions to take effect while the case proceeded.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In arguments highly focused on technical legal issues, Alito and Thomas asked some of the few questions Tuesday on the substance of the case, including about sending mifepristone through the mail.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They referred to the Comstock Act, a rarely used, 151-year-old criminal law that has been revived by anti-abortion advocates seeking to block the delivery of mifepristone through the U.S. mail. Addressing Ellsworth, Thomas said the law is “fairly broad, and it specifically covers drugs such as yours.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even if the court doesn’t address the Comstock Act in its ruling, some abortion rights advocates fear that a future administration that favors abortion restrictions could invoke the law to roll back access to mifepristone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Mifepristone is one of two drugs, along with misoprostol, used in medication abortions. Their numbers have been rising for years. More than 6 million people have used mifepristone since 2000. \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/mifepristone-supreme-court-abortion-d451e14148ffbe6ce4811b1a37651480\">Mifepristone\u003c/a> is taken first to dilate the cervix and block the hormone progesterone, which is needed to sustain a pregnancy. Misoprostol is taken 24 to 48 hours later, causing the uterus to contract and expel pregnancy tissue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Health care providers have said that if mifepristone is no longer available or is too hard to obtain, they would switch to using only misoprostol, which is somewhat less effective in ending pregnancies.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/11980822/supreme-court-expected-to-preserve-access-to-abortion-medication-mifepristone",
"authors": [
"byline_news_11980822"
],
"categories": [
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_23790",
"news_20402",
"news_932"
],
"featImg": "news_11946812",
"label": "news"
},
"news_11980696": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11980696",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11980696",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1711407634000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-court-case-could-reshape-abortion-access-and-drug-industry-oversight",
"title": "What's at Stake in the Supreme Court Mifepristone Case?",
"publishDate": 1711407634,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "What’s at Stake in the Supreme Court Mifepristone Case? | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 253,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>Just months after the Supreme Court overturned \u003cem>Roe v. Wade \u003c/em>in 2022, a newly formed group called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine sued the Food and Drug Administration, challenging its approval of mifepristone, a medication used for abortion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On Tuesday, the same justices who undid constitutional protection for abortion will hear arguments in the next frontier of abortion restriction: tightening access across the country for a medication that’s used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions nationally.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[pullquote size=\"medium\" align=\"right\" citation=\"Mary Ziegler, law professor, UC Davis\"]‘This is a reminder that what happens in the federal courts can override what voters decide.’[/pullquote]That is the main issue in \u003cem>FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. \u003c/em>On one side are anti-abortion rights physicians and organizations. \u003ca href=\"https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/AllianceForHippocraticMedicineComplaint.pdf\">Originally\u003c/a>, they argued that the FDA should not have approved mifepristone in 2000; now, they’re \u003ca href=\"https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/AHM-OpeningBrief.pdf\">focusing on the argument\u003c/a> that it should not have made it easier to access in 2016 and 2021.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other side is FDA and the drugmaker, Danco, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/medication-abortion-fda-supreme-court-alliance-hippocratic-medicine/\">who say\u003c/a> that the challengers aren’t actually harmed by the prescribing rules (and thus don’t have standing to bring the case) and that the FDA followed correct procedure and the scientific evidence in making its decisions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It’s a closely-watched case because the stakes are extremely high – not just for abortion access and reproductive health care, but for the drug industry and even the authority of federal agencies. Here is a summary of what’s at stake.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>1. It could make medication abortion much harder to get\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>At least \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/19/1238293143/abortion-data-how-many-us-2023\">63% of all abortions\u003c/a> last year were medication abortions. They involve taking one dose of mifepristone, which blocks the pregnancy hormone progesterone, and one dose of misoprostol, which causes cramping and empties the uterus. Dozens of studies have found that the combination of these pills is \u003ca href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507232/#sec_000054\">safe and effective\u003c/a> for abortion, whether prescribed in a clinic or \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/02/15/1231652715/abortion-pill-telehealth-supreme-court-safe-study-mifepristone#:~:text=All%20Things%20Considered-,Abortion%20pills%20prescribed%20via%20telehealth%20are%20safe%20and%20effective%2C%20study,by%20any%20serious%20adverse%20events.\">through telemedicine\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[aside postID=\"news_11973441,news_11976304,news_11958412\" label=\"Related Stories\"]Last August, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/08/16/1194280392/ruling-deals-blow-to-access-to-abortion-pill-mifepristone-but-nothing-changes-ye\">ruled\u003c/a> that the FDA should roll back its prescribing rules to what they were in 2011. That would dramatically reduce the number of people able to access this medication for several reasons. It would shut down telemedicine access to the medication and could undo retail pharmacies’ \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2024/03/01/1235265078/abortion-pill-cvs-walgreens-mifepristone#:~:text=CVS%20and%20Walgreens%2C%20two%20of,companies%20separately%20confirmed%20to%20NPR.\">new ability to dispense it\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It would also make it only available until seven weeks of pregnancy, instead of 10 weeks under the current rules, along with other changes. (Globally, the medication can be used \u003ca href=\"https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/07/mifepristone-abortion-global-context-safe-effective-and-approved-nearly-100-countries#:~:text=The%20World%20Health%20Organization%20(WHO,methods%20of%20ending%20a%20pregnancy.\">as late as 12 weeks\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even though the difference between seven and 10 weeks might not sound like much, nearly half of medication abortions happen after seven weeks, \u003ca href=\"https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/ss/ss7209a1.htm#T13_down\">according to the CDC\u003c/a>. Melissa Grant, COO of \u003ca href=\"https://carafem.org/\">carafem\u003c/a>, which runs abortion clinics and provides telemedicine abortions, explains that’s because the earliest someone might find out they’re pregnant is at four weeks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A seven-week limit gives people three weeks, at most, “to get a positive pregnancy test, determine what option is best for them, potentially involve people that they care about in their lives, find an appointment, look at potential assistance for the finances of it, and then actually go and get the medication and use it,” she says. “That’s a rapid turnaround.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Many abortion providers are prepared to switch to another regimen, using \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/10/1168857095/misoprostol-only-medical-abortion\">only misoprostol\u003c/a>, but it requires more doses, which come with more side effects. And Grant says that regimen might be the next target if the challengers succeed in restricting mifepristone. “We wouldn’t be surprised if the next move on the political chessboard is to make both of these drugs unavailable,” she says.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>2. It would hamper miscarriage care\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>When someone has a miscarriage, doctors often prescribe the same mifepristone plus misoprostol regimen. The treatment can potentially ward off weeks of waiting, worrying and bleeding.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For instance, Michelle Brown \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/17/1176514276/mifepristone-abortion-miscarriage-pill\">told NPR\u003c/a> that after she learned she was miscarrying, she was nervous she would start bleeding on her long commute to work in Louisiana, where there was no safe place to pull over. Taking mifepristone allowed her to plan ahead so she could be comfortable at home with her then-fiancé.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Larissa Adams explained to NPR that taking mifepristone allowed her to get through years of family planning challenges that involved miscarriage after miscarriage after miscarriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We use this medication in lots of different ways and for lots of different care,” including for miscarriage and pregnancy loss, says \u003ca href=\"https://prh.org/staff/dr-jamila-perritt-president-ceo/\">Dr. Jamila Perritt\u003c/a>, an OB-GYN in Washington D.C. who’s the President of Physicians for Reproductive Health. “If this medication is restricted or banned completely, no one will be able to get access to it with any ease,” she says.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>3. It could affect the whole country, including voters’ preferences in blue states\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>In the nearly two years since the Supreme Court overturned \u003cem>Roe\u003c/em>, states have moved in two opposing directions – about half of states ban or seriously restrict abortion, and the other half have passed measures to protect access.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A Supreme Court decision that restricts access to mifepristone would affect the whole country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I think there’s been to some degree a false sense of security created by ballot initiatives [protecting abortion access] in some states,” says \u003ca href=\"https://law.ucdavis.edu/people/mary-ziegler\">Mary Ziegler,\u003c/a> a law professor at the University of California-Davis. “People are thinking, ‘What happens in the Supreme Court doesn’t really matter because I live in California or I live in Michigan or I live in Ohio’ – that, essentially, if you voted for a ballot initiative or you live in a blue state, you don’t have to worry about it.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This is a reminder that what happens in the federal courts can override what voters decide,” she adds.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>4. It could interfere with state sovereignty\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>A ruling to limit access to mifepristone would extend into the states that have attempted to protect access. That’s why a group of 22 Democratic governors \u003ca href=\"https://governor.wa.gov/news/2024/reproductive-freedom-alliance-urges-supreme-court-respect-longstanding-fda-authority-access-safe\">filed an amicus brief\u003c/a> in this case. It argues that, if successful, the challengers’ strategy of using federal courts to override the FDA’s judgment, “would have an enormously disruptive impact on state governance and hamstring governors’ ability to fulfill their mandate of protecting public health and safety in the reproductive health care context and beyond.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ziegler observes there’s an irony here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“When the Supreme Court overruled \u003cem>Roe\u003c/em>, the takeaway, if you will, from Justice Alito, was, ‘It’s time for this question to be returned to the people and their elected representatives,'” she observes. “And yet, fast forward less than two years later and we have two major abortion cases at the Supreme Court, both of which could very much reconfigure what happens in states.” (The other \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2024/01/05/1216284896/supreme-court-allows-idaho-abortion-ban-to-be-enacted-first-such-ruling-since-do\">case, from Idaho\u003c/a>, challenges federal rules requiring abortion during a medical emergency, regardless of state restrictions.)\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>6. The drug industry could face destabilizing uncertainty\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Drugmakers are quite concerned about the mifepristone case. Hundreds of drug company executives \u003ca href=\"https://docsend.com/view/2ahvmwy8djzxax3g\">signed a letter\u003c/a> last year in support of the FDA’s authority to regulate medications without judicial interference. Many also submitted \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-235/299230/20240130145318224_23-235%20236%20tsac%20Pharma%20Merits%20Amicus%20FINAL.pdf\">an amicus brief\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This case is about mifepristone right now – it’s about one medicine, but it really could be any medicine, ” Dr. Amanda Banks, a consultant who signed the amicus brief, says in a press conference this month organized by the ACLU.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The [FDA] regulatory process that we rely upon as an industry is rigorous and long and it’s expensive,” she explained, adding that it’s not a perfect process, but it’s predictable. If it can be undone by plaintiffs who morally object to a medicine and friendly federal courts, that predictability goes out the window, she says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The uncertainty could affect investors and drug companies and “could put innovation for new drugs and much, much-needed therapies for patients, not just in the United States, but globally, at fundamental risk,” Banks says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It could also set a new precedent, Ziegler adds. “Any drug could get a second look from federal judges who are not reviewing as much evidence [as FDA scientists], or are not competent to review as much evidence, because they don’t like the way the FDA handled it,” she says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-235/299512/20240201143618529_23-235%20and%2023-236%20tsac%20Motion%20For%20Leave%20To%20File%20Brief%20And%20Ac%20Former%20Commissioners%20Of%20The%20U.S.%20Food%20And%20Drug%20Administration.pdf\">another amicus brief\u003c/a>, former FDA commissioners argued that drug companies could make use of a precedent set by this case to challenge a competitor’s FDA approval. Or, they write, “Organizations representing patients who experience rare adverse events could challenge FDA’s risk-benefit analyses and attempt to bar access to safe and effective remedies for others who need them.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I think that’s why the pharmaceutical industry is nervous,” Ziegler says. “They’re saying, if this could happen with mifepristone, which has a very, very low complication rate and which is very, very well studied because it’s been controversial, then what would stop anyone from doing it with every other drug?”\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>7. A path toward a national abortion ban is embedded in the cas\u003cstrong>e\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Legal scholars like Ziegler also note that there’s an even bigger way that this case could affect everyone in the country. “You have, lurking in the background, the possibility that the Comstock Act is going to be reinvented as an abortion ban,” she says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2023/04/18/1170371877/abortion-pill-mifepristone-judge-comstock\">The Comstock Act\u003c/a> is a 19th-century law prohibiting the mailing of things for “indecent” or “immoral” use. The plaintiffs in this case use Comstock in one of their arguments, treating it as a straightforward statute and not a defunct law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The rules included in the Comstock Act could encompass not just abortion pills but birth control and any equipment used for any type of abortion, and Ziegler says this could effectively inhibit all abortion care in the U.S.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Regardless of what the ultimate decision on mifepristone is, “if the court says, ‘your reading of the Comstock Act is right,’ there are any number of anti-abortion groups that will try to find a way to get back to the Supreme Court to explore all those implications,” Ziegler says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv class=\"fullattribution\">\u003cem>Copyright 2024 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" src=\"https://www.google-analytics.com/__utm.gif?utmac=UA-5828686-4&utmdt=What%27s+at+stake+in+the+Supreme+Court+mifepristone+case&utme=8(APIKey)9(MDAxOTAwOTE4MDEyMTkxMDAzNjczZDljZA004)\">\u003c/em>\u003c/div>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "The case could affect not just abortion access but also oversight of the drug industry and the authority of federal agencies.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1721133711,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 35,
"wordCount": 1770
},
"headData": {
"title": "What's at Stake in the Supreme Court Mifepristone Case? | KQED",
"description": "The case could affect not just abortion access but also oversight of the drug industry and the authority of federal agencies.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "What's at Stake in the Supreme Court Mifepristone Case?",
"datePublished": "2024-03-25T16:00:34-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-07-16T05:41:51-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"nprByline": "Selena Simmons-Duffin",
"nprImageAgency": "Tracy Lee for NPR",
"nprStoryId": "1240282129",
"nprApiLink": "http://api.npr.org/query?id=1240282129&apiKey=MDAxOTAwOTE4MDEyMTkxMDAzNjczZDljZA004",
"nprHtmlLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/25/1240282129/mifepristone-supreme-court-fda-medication-abortion-explainer?ft=nprml&f=1240282129",
"nprRetrievedStory": "1",
"nprPubDate": "Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:01:00 -0400",
"nprStoryDate": "Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:01:06 -0400",
"nprLastModifiedDate": "Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:01:06 -0400",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"showOnAuthorArchivePages": "No",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11980696/supreme-court-case-could-reshape-abortion-access-and-drug-industry-oversight",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Just months after the Supreme Court overturned \u003cem>Roe v. Wade \u003c/em>in 2022, a newly formed group called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine sued the Food and Drug Administration, challenging its approval of mifepristone, a medication used for abortion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On Tuesday, the same justices who undid constitutional protection for abortion will hear arguments in the next frontier of abortion restriction: tightening access across the country for a medication that’s used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions nationally.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "‘This is a reminder that what happens in the federal courts can override what voters decide.’",
"name": "pullquote",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"size": "medium",
"align": "right",
"citation": "Mary Ziegler, law professor, UC Davis",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>That is the main issue in \u003cem>FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. \u003c/em>On one side are anti-abortion rights physicians and organizations. \u003ca href=\"https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/AllianceForHippocraticMedicineComplaint.pdf\">Originally\u003c/a>, they argued that the FDA should not have approved mifepristone in 2000; now, they’re \u003ca href=\"https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/AHM-OpeningBrief.pdf\">focusing on the argument\u003c/a> that it should not have made it easier to access in 2016 and 2021.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other side is FDA and the drugmaker, Danco, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/medication-abortion-fda-supreme-court-alliance-hippocratic-medicine/\">who say\u003c/a> that the challengers aren’t actually harmed by the prescribing rules (and thus don’t have standing to bring the case) and that the FDA followed correct procedure and the scientific evidence in making its decisions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It’s a closely-watched case because the stakes are extremely high – not just for abortion access and reproductive health care, but for the drug industry and even the authority of federal agencies. Here is a summary of what’s at stake.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>1. It could make medication abortion much harder to get\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>At least \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/19/1238293143/abortion-data-how-many-us-2023\">63% of all abortions\u003c/a> last year were medication abortions. They involve taking one dose of mifepristone, which blocks the pregnancy hormone progesterone, and one dose of misoprostol, which causes cramping and empties the uterus. Dozens of studies have found that the combination of these pills is \u003ca href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507232/#sec_000054\">safe and effective\u003c/a> for abortion, whether prescribed in a clinic or \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/02/15/1231652715/abortion-pill-telehealth-supreme-court-safe-study-mifepristone#:~:text=All%20Things%20Considered-,Abortion%20pills%20prescribed%20via%20telehealth%20are%20safe%20and%20effective%2C%20study,by%20any%20serious%20adverse%20events.\">through telemedicine\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_11973441,news_11976304,news_11958412",
"label": "Related Stories "
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>Last August, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/08/16/1194280392/ruling-deals-blow-to-access-to-abortion-pill-mifepristone-but-nothing-changes-ye\">ruled\u003c/a> that the FDA should roll back its prescribing rules to what they were in 2011. That would dramatically reduce the number of people able to access this medication for several reasons. It would shut down telemedicine access to the medication and could undo retail pharmacies’ \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2024/03/01/1235265078/abortion-pill-cvs-walgreens-mifepristone#:~:text=CVS%20and%20Walgreens%2C%20two%20of,companies%20separately%20confirmed%20to%20NPR.\">new ability to dispense it\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It would also make it only available until seven weeks of pregnancy, instead of 10 weeks under the current rules, along with other changes. (Globally, the medication can be used \u003ca href=\"https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/07/mifepristone-abortion-global-context-safe-effective-and-approved-nearly-100-countries#:~:text=The%20World%20Health%20Organization%20(WHO,methods%20of%20ending%20a%20pregnancy.\">as late as 12 weeks\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even though the difference between seven and 10 weeks might not sound like much, nearly half of medication abortions happen after seven weeks, \u003ca href=\"https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/ss/ss7209a1.htm#T13_down\">according to the CDC\u003c/a>. Melissa Grant, COO of \u003ca href=\"https://carafem.org/\">carafem\u003c/a>, which runs abortion clinics and provides telemedicine abortions, explains that’s because the earliest someone might find out they’re pregnant is at four weeks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A seven-week limit gives people three weeks, at most, “to get a positive pregnancy test, determine what option is best for them, potentially involve people that they care about in their lives, find an appointment, look at potential assistance for the finances of it, and then actually go and get the medication and use it,” she says. “That’s a rapid turnaround.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Many abortion providers are prepared to switch to another regimen, using \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/10/1168857095/misoprostol-only-medical-abortion\">only misoprostol\u003c/a>, but it requires more doses, which come with more side effects. And Grant says that regimen might be the next target if the challengers succeed in restricting mifepristone. “We wouldn’t be surprised if the next move on the political chessboard is to make both of these drugs unavailable,” she says.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>2. It would hamper miscarriage care\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>When someone has a miscarriage, doctors often prescribe the same mifepristone plus misoprostol regimen. The treatment can potentially ward off weeks of waiting, worrying and bleeding.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For instance, Michelle Brown \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/17/1176514276/mifepristone-abortion-miscarriage-pill\">told NPR\u003c/a> that after she learned she was miscarrying, she was nervous she would start bleeding on her long commute to work in Louisiana, where there was no safe place to pull over. Taking mifepristone allowed her to plan ahead so she could be comfortable at home with her then-fiancé.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Larissa Adams explained to NPR that taking mifepristone allowed her to get through years of family planning challenges that involved miscarriage after miscarriage after miscarriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We use this medication in lots of different ways and for lots of different care,” including for miscarriage and pregnancy loss, says \u003ca href=\"https://prh.org/staff/dr-jamila-perritt-president-ceo/\">Dr. Jamila Perritt\u003c/a>, an OB-GYN in Washington D.C. who’s the President of Physicians for Reproductive Health. “If this medication is restricted or banned completely, no one will be able to get access to it with any ease,” she says.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>3. It could affect the whole country, including voters’ preferences in blue states\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>In the nearly two years since the Supreme Court overturned \u003cem>Roe\u003c/em>, states have moved in two opposing directions – about half of states ban or seriously restrict abortion, and the other half have passed measures to protect access.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A Supreme Court decision that restricts access to mifepristone would affect the whole country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I think there’s been to some degree a false sense of security created by ballot initiatives [protecting abortion access] in some states,” says \u003ca href=\"https://law.ucdavis.edu/people/mary-ziegler\">Mary Ziegler,\u003c/a> a law professor at the University of California-Davis. “People are thinking, ‘What happens in the Supreme Court doesn’t really matter because I live in California or I live in Michigan or I live in Ohio’ – that, essentially, if you voted for a ballot initiative or you live in a blue state, you don’t have to worry about it.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This is a reminder that what happens in the federal courts can override what voters decide,” she adds.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>4. It could interfere with state sovereignty\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>A ruling to limit access to mifepristone would extend into the states that have attempted to protect access. That’s why a group of 22 Democratic governors \u003ca href=\"https://governor.wa.gov/news/2024/reproductive-freedom-alliance-urges-supreme-court-respect-longstanding-fda-authority-access-safe\">filed an amicus brief\u003c/a> in this case. It argues that, if successful, the challengers’ strategy of using federal courts to override the FDA’s judgment, “would have an enormously disruptive impact on state governance and hamstring governors’ ability to fulfill their mandate of protecting public health and safety in the reproductive health care context and beyond.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ziegler observes there’s an irony here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“When the Supreme Court overruled \u003cem>Roe\u003c/em>, the takeaway, if you will, from Justice Alito, was, ‘It’s time for this question to be returned to the people and their elected representatives,'” she observes. “And yet, fast forward less than two years later and we have two major abortion cases at the Supreme Court, both of which could very much reconfigure what happens in states.” (The other \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2024/01/05/1216284896/supreme-court-allows-idaho-abortion-ban-to-be-enacted-first-such-ruling-since-do\">case, from Idaho\u003c/a>, challenges federal rules requiring abortion during a medical emergency, regardless of state restrictions.)\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>6. The drug industry could face destabilizing uncertainty\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Drugmakers are quite concerned about the mifepristone case. Hundreds of drug company executives \u003ca href=\"https://docsend.com/view/2ahvmwy8djzxax3g\">signed a letter\u003c/a> last year in support of the FDA’s authority to regulate medications without judicial interference. Many also submitted \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-235/299230/20240130145318224_23-235%20236%20tsac%20Pharma%20Merits%20Amicus%20FINAL.pdf\">an amicus brief\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This case is about mifepristone right now – it’s about one medicine, but it really could be any medicine, ” Dr. Amanda Banks, a consultant who signed the amicus brief, says in a press conference this month organized by the ACLU.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The [FDA] regulatory process that we rely upon as an industry is rigorous and long and it’s expensive,” she explained, adding that it’s not a perfect process, but it’s predictable. If it can be undone by plaintiffs who morally object to a medicine and friendly federal courts, that predictability goes out the window, she says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The uncertainty could affect investors and drug companies and “could put innovation for new drugs and much, much-needed therapies for patients, not just in the United States, but globally, at fundamental risk,” Banks says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It could also set a new precedent, Ziegler adds. “Any drug could get a second look from federal judges who are not reviewing as much evidence [as FDA scientists], or are not competent to review as much evidence, because they don’t like the way the FDA handled it,” she says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-235/299512/20240201143618529_23-235%20and%2023-236%20tsac%20Motion%20For%20Leave%20To%20File%20Brief%20And%20Ac%20Former%20Commissioners%20Of%20The%20U.S.%20Food%20And%20Drug%20Administration.pdf\">another amicus brief\u003c/a>, former FDA commissioners argued that drug companies could make use of a precedent set by this case to challenge a competitor’s FDA approval. Or, they write, “Organizations representing patients who experience rare adverse events could challenge FDA’s risk-benefit analyses and attempt to bar access to safe and effective remedies for others who need them.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I think that’s why the pharmaceutical industry is nervous,” Ziegler says. “They’re saying, if this could happen with mifepristone, which has a very, very low complication rate and which is very, very well studied because it’s been controversial, then what would stop anyone from doing it with every other drug?”\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>7. A path toward a national abortion ban is embedded in the cas\u003cstrong>e\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Legal scholars like Ziegler also note that there’s an even bigger way that this case could affect everyone in the country. “You have, lurking in the background, the possibility that the Comstock Act is going to be reinvented as an abortion ban,” she says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2023/04/18/1170371877/abortion-pill-mifepristone-judge-comstock\">The Comstock Act\u003c/a> is a 19th-century law prohibiting the mailing of things for “indecent” or “immoral” use. The plaintiffs in this case use Comstock in one of their arguments, treating it as a straightforward statute and not a defunct law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The rules included in the Comstock Act could encompass not just abortion pills but birth control and any equipment used for any type of abortion, and Ziegler says this could effectively inhibit all abortion care in the U.S.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Regardless of what the ultimate decision on mifepristone is, “if the court says, ‘your reading of the Comstock Act is right,’ there are any number of anti-abortion groups that will try to find a way to get back to the Supreme Court to explore all those implications,” Ziegler says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv class=\"fullattribution\">\u003cem>Copyright 2024 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" src=\"https://www.google-analytics.com/__utm.gif?utmac=UA-5828686-4&utmdt=What%27s+at+stake+in+the+Supreme+Court+mifepristone+case&utme=8(APIKey)9(MDAxOTAwOTE4MDEyMTkxMDAzNjczZDljZA004)\">\u003c/em>\u003c/div>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/11980696/supreme-court-case-could-reshape-abortion-access-and-drug-industry-oversight",
"authors": [
"byline_news_11980696"
],
"categories": [
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_866",
"news_30251",
"news_27626",
"news_932"
],
"affiliates": [
"news_253"
],
"featImg": "news_11980697",
"label": "news_253"
},
"news_11979853": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11979853",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11979853",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1710800673000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1710800673,
"format": "standard",
"title": "Supreme Court Seems to Favor Biden in Battle Against Controversial Social Media Posts",
"headTitle": "Supreme Court Seems to Favor Biden in Battle Against Controversial Social Media Posts | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court\">Supreme Court\u003c/a> seemed likely Monday to side with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/social-media-biden-administration-lawsuit-injunction-6322aae981bdc5c9009babde4b31ab60\">controversial social media posts\u003c/a> on topics including COVID-19 and election security in a case that could set standards for free speech in the digital age.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices seemed broadly skeptical during nearly two hours of arguments that a lawyer for Louisiana, Missouri and other parties presented, accusing officials in the Democratic administration of leaning on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[pullquote size=\"medium\" align=\"right\" citation=\"Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, Columbia University\"]‘We’re encouraged that the Court was sensitive both to the First Amendment rights of platforms and their users, and to the public interest in having a government empowered to participate in public discourse.’[/pullquote]Lower courts have sided with the states, but the Supreme Court blocked those rulings while it considers the issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Several justices said they were concerned that common interactions between government officials and the platforms could be affected by a ruling for the states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In one example, Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed surprise when Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga questioned whether the FBI could call Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter, to encourage them to take down posts that maliciously released someone’s personal information without permission, the practice known as doxxing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Do you know how often the FBI makes those calls?” Barrett asked, suggesting they happen frequently.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Brett Kavanaugh also signaled that a ruling for the states would mean that “traditional, everyday communications would suddenly be deemed problematic.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[aside postID=\"science_1985952,education_536058,mindshift_62233\" label=\"Related Stories\"]The case on Monday was among several the court is considering that affect social media companies in the context of free speech. Last week, the court laid out \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-public-officials-973f1d18e74faccaa4bfce3bd65cc1af\">standards for when public officials can block their social media followers\u003c/a>. Less than a month ago, the court heard arguments over \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-florida-texas-820e90e58e49c1146b69101ece4dd9d5\">Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas\u003c/a> that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The cases over state laws and the one that was argued Monday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The states argue that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who coerced changes in online content on social media platforms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Aguiñaga put the situation in stark terms, telling the justices that “the record reveals unrelenting pressure by the government to coerce social media platforms to suppress the speech of millions of Americans.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He said that calls merely encouraging the platforms to act could also violate speech rights, responding to a hypothetical situation conjured by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson about an online challenge that “involved teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Jackson, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, pressed the Louisiana lawyer about whether platforms could be encouraged to remove such posts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I was with you right until that last comment, Your Honor,” Aguiñaga said. “I think they absolutely can call and say this is a problem, it’s going rampant on your platforms, but the moment that the government tries to use its ability as the government and its stature as the government to pressure them to take it down, that is when you’re interfering with the third party’s speech rights.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Samuel Alito appeared most open to the states’ arguments, at one point referring to the government’s “constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms.” Alito, along with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, would have allowed the restrictions on government contacts with the platforms to go into effect.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Department lawyer Brian Fletcher argued that none of the actions the states complain about come close to problematic coercion and that the federal government would lose its ability to communicate with the social media companies about antisemitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as on issues of national security, public health and election integrity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The platforms are large sophisticated actors with no reluctance to stand up to the government, “saying no repeatedly when they disagree with what the government is asking them to do,” Fletcher said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Elena Kagan and Kavanaugh, two justices who served in the White House earlier in their careers, seemed to agree, likening the exchanges between officials and the platforms to relationships between the government and more traditional media.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kavanaugh described “experienced government press people throughout the federal government who regularly call up the media and — and berate them.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Later, Kagan said, “I mean, this happens literally thousands of times a day in the federal government.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Alito, gesturing at the courtroom’s press section, mused that whenever reporters “write something we don’t like,” the court’s chief spokeswoman “can call them up and curse them out and say…why don’t we be partners? We’re on the same team. Why don’t you show us what you’re going to write beforehand? We’ll edit it for you, make sure it’s accurate.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Free speech advocates said the court should use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government’s acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We’re encouraged that the Court was sensitive both to the First Amendment rights of platforms and their users and to the public interest in having a government empowered to participate in public discourse. To that end, we hope that the Court resolves these cases by making clear that the First Amendment prohibits coercion but permits the government to attempt to shape public opinion through the use of persuasion,” Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in a statement.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A panel of three judges on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled earlier that the Biden administration had probably brought unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appellate panel said officials cannot attempt to “coerce or significantly encourage” changes in online content. The panel had previously narrowed a more sweeping order from a federal judge, who wanted to include even more government officials and prohibit mere encouragement of content changes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A divided Supreme Court put the 5th Circuit ruling on hold in October when it agreed to take up the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A decision in Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411, is expected by early summer.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1153,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 28
},
"modified": 1710803546,
"excerpt": "The high court seems likely to side with Biden's administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts. ",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The high court seems likely to side with Biden's administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts. ",
"title": "Supreme Court Seems to Favor Biden in Battle Against Controversial Social Media Posts | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Supreme Court Seems to Favor Biden in Battle Against Controversial Social Media Posts",
"datePublished": "2024-03-18T15:24:33-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-03-18T16:12:26-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-court-seems-to-favor-biden-in-battle-against-controversial-social-media-posts",
"status": "publish",
"nprByline": "Mark Sherman\u003cbr>The Associated Press\u003c/br>",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"sticky": false,
"showOnAuthorArchivePages": "No",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11979853/supreme-court-seems-to-favor-biden-in-battle-against-controversial-social-media-posts",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court\">Supreme Court\u003c/a> seemed likely Monday to side with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/social-media-biden-administration-lawsuit-injunction-6322aae981bdc5c9009babde4b31ab60\">controversial social media posts\u003c/a> on topics including COVID-19 and election security in a case that could set standards for free speech in the digital age.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices seemed broadly skeptical during nearly two hours of arguments that a lawyer for Louisiana, Missouri and other parties presented, accusing officials in the Democratic administration of leaning on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "‘We’re encouraged that the Court was sensitive both to the First Amendment rights of platforms and their users, and to the public interest in having a government empowered to participate in public discourse.’",
"name": "pullquote",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"size": "medium",
"align": "right",
"citation": "Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, Columbia University",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>Lower courts have sided with the states, but the Supreme Court blocked those rulings while it considers the issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Several justices said they were concerned that common interactions between government officials and the platforms could be affected by a ruling for the states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In one example, Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed surprise when Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga questioned whether the FBI could call Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter, to encourage them to take down posts that maliciously released someone’s personal information without permission, the practice known as doxxing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Do you know how often the FBI makes those calls?” Barrett asked, suggesting they happen frequently.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Brett Kavanaugh also signaled that a ruling for the states would mean that “traditional, everyday communications would suddenly be deemed problematic.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "science_1985952,education_536058,mindshift_62233",
"label": "Related Stories "
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>The case on Monday was among several the court is considering that affect social media companies in the context of free speech. Last week, the court laid out \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-public-officials-973f1d18e74faccaa4bfce3bd65cc1af\">standards for when public officials can block their social media followers\u003c/a>. Less than a month ago, the court heard arguments over \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-florida-texas-820e90e58e49c1146b69101ece4dd9d5\">Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas\u003c/a> that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The cases over state laws and the one that was argued Monday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The states argue that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who coerced changes in online content on social media platforms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Aguiñaga put the situation in stark terms, telling the justices that “the record reveals unrelenting pressure by the government to coerce social media platforms to suppress the speech of millions of Americans.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He said that calls merely encouraging the platforms to act could also violate speech rights, responding to a hypothetical situation conjured by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson about an online challenge that “involved teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Jackson, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, pressed the Louisiana lawyer about whether platforms could be encouraged to remove such posts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I was with you right until that last comment, Your Honor,” Aguiñaga said. “I think they absolutely can call and say this is a problem, it’s going rampant on your platforms, but the moment that the government tries to use its ability as the government and its stature as the government to pressure them to take it down, that is when you’re interfering with the third party’s speech rights.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Samuel Alito appeared most open to the states’ arguments, at one point referring to the government’s “constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms.” Alito, along with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, would have allowed the restrictions on government contacts with the platforms to go into effect.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Department lawyer Brian Fletcher argued that none of the actions the states complain about come close to problematic coercion and that the federal government would lose its ability to communicate with the social media companies about antisemitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as on issues of national security, public health and election integrity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The platforms are large sophisticated actors with no reluctance to stand up to the government, “saying no repeatedly when they disagree with what the government is asking them to do,” Fletcher said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Elena Kagan and Kavanaugh, two justices who served in the White House earlier in their careers, seemed to agree, likening the exchanges between officials and the platforms to relationships between the government and more traditional media.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kavanaugh described “experienced government press people throughout the federal government who regularly call up the media and — and berate them.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Later, Kagan said, “I mean, this happens literally thousands of times a day in the federal government.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Alito, gesturing at the courtroom’s press section, mused that whenever reporters “write something we don’t like,” the court’s chief spokeswoman “can call them up and curse them out and say…why don’t we be partners? We’re on the same team. Why don’t you show us what you’re going to write beforehand? We’ll edit it for you, make sure it’s accurate.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Free speech advocates said the court should use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government’s acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We’re encouraged that the Court was sensitive both to the First Amendment rights of platforms and their users and to the public interest in having a government empowered to participate in public discourse. To that end, we hope that the Court resolves these cases by making clear that the First Amendment prohibits coercion but permits the government to attempt to shape public opinion through the use of persuasion,” Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in a statement.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A panel of three judges on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled earlier that the Biden administration had probably brought unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appellate panel said officials cannot attempt to “coerce or significantly encourage” changes in online content. The panel had previously narrowed a more sweeping order from a federal judge, who wanted to include even more government officials and prohibit mere encouragement of content changes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A divided Supreme Court put the 5th Circuit ruling on hold in October when it agreed to take up the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A decision in Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411, is expected by early summer.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/11979853/supreme-court-seems-to-favor-biden-in-battle-against-controversial-social-media-posts",
"authors": [
"byline_news_11979853"
],
"categories": [
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_29052",
"news_1089",
"news_932"
],
"featImg": "news_11979855",
"label": "news"
},
"news_11977992": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11977992",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11977992",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1709589619000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "takeaways-from-trumps-supreme-court-win-he-stays-on-ballot-but-legal-peril-looms",
"title": "Takeaways From Trump's Supreme Court Win: He Stays on Ballot, but Legal Peril Looms",
"publishDate": 1709589619,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Takeaways From Trump’s Supreme Court Win: He Stays on Ballot, but Legal Peril Looms | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>Former President \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump\">Donald Trump gained\u003c/a> a clear win at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, which unanimously ruled that states don’t have the ability to bar him — or any other federal candidates — from the ballot under a rarely-used constitutional provision that prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The decision shuts down a push in dozens of states to end Trump’s candidacy through a clause in the 14th Amendment, written to prevent former Confederates from serving in government after the Civil War.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But it may open the door to further electoral uncertainty, exposing more state officials to disqualification under the provision and setting up a constitutional showdown should Trump win the election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Facing four separate criminal trials, Trump’s legal peril may just be beginning. So is the Supreme Court’s role in that process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here are some takeaways:\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003cstrong>A technical, but still big win\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>The most significant thing the court did Monday was to overturn a Colorado Supreme Court ruling from December that Trump was not eligible to be president because he violated the insurrection clause, Section 3, of the 14th Amendment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[aside postID=\"news_11975149,news_11973899,news_11977488\" label=\"Related Stories\"]This will also stop efforts to kick him off the ballot in Illinois, Maine and other states. Had the Supreme Court let the Colorado ruling stand, it could have triggered a new wave of litigation that might have left Trump disqualified in many states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The high court avoided addressing the politically contentious issue of whether Trump played a role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol that would have barred him from seeking office. The ruling is almost devoid of references to Jan. 6 or insurrection and doesn’t address whether Trump committed such an act by sparking the attack on the Capitol.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Instead, it focuses on the technical, procedural question of who gets to decide an election challenge under Section 3.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>All nine justices agreed that is the purview of Congress. But a narrower majority of five went further, ruling it can only be done through legislation. That exposes significant splits underneath the unanimous majority and points toward the greatest uncertainty the ruling creates.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>A time bomb for Jan. 6, 2025?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>One possible outcome that the case presented was the prospect of unelected judges disqualifying the man dominating who has already received hundreds of thousands of votes in the nominating process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But another potential nightmare is that if Congress is the only entity that can determine whether a presidential hopeful is indeed disqualified for engaging in “insurrection,” it makes that determination on Jan. 6, 2025, when required to certify a possible Trump victory in the presidential election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The high court shut down the first possibility but may have left the door open to the second one. The five-justice majority — all from the court’s conservative wing — said Congress can implement Section 3 through legislation, “subject of course to judicial review.” (That means the court reserves for itself the right to have the final say.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That triggered a dissent from the court’s three liberals, who complained that that “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That would appear to include a rejection of Trump’s electors should he win the election — but multiple legal experts said Monday that it wasn’t that clear, and the only way to know may be for Congress to try.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Feeling the heat\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>The 14th Amendment case is one of two, putting the high court squarely amid the ongoing presidential election. Last week, the court agreed to hear Trump’s appeal of a federal ruling that he’s not entitled to immunity from criminal charges for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Trump’s trial on those charges was originally scheduled to begin Monday but has been postponed because of the battle over his immunity challenge. The high court taking up his appeal in late April raises the possibility that the trial won’t conclude until after the presidential election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices’ discomfort over being put in the middle of the nation’s partisan divide came through in a brief but notable concurring opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Though one of the court’s conservatives, she disagreed with the majority’s ruling that Congress can only enforce Section 3 through legislation. But she didn’t want to sign onto the liberals’ dissent, either; instead, she warned against focusing too much on partisan divisions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“… this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case,” she concluded. “That is the message Americans should take home.”\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Action in the states\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>The court’s ruling shuts off using Section 3 against federal officials absent action by Congress, but it leaves open the ability of states to use the provision against their own state officials, noting there’s a rich record after the Civil War of just those sorts of actions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That’s already begun anew in the post-Jan. 6 era. The first disqualification under Section 3 in more than a century came in 2022, when a New Mexico court removed Couy Griffin, who was convicted of entering the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6 while leading a group called “Cowboys for Trump,” from his rural county commission.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The group that brought that case, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, next filed the Colorado case against Trump. They said they were eager to continue filing Section 3 cases against lower-level Jan. 6 participants.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Trump’s legal travails ahead\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Few observers expected the Supreme Court to keep Trump off the ballot. But he’s facing a far more perilous legal road ahead.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The first of Trump’s criminal trials for allegedly falsifying business records to pay hush money to an adult film actress during the 2016 presidential campaign is scheduled to start in New York later this month. The former president is also appealing a New York judge’s ruling that he pay $355 million for fraud committed by his businesses and verdict that he pay a writer $83 million for defaming her after she sued him for sexual assault.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Depending on how and how quickly the high court rules on Trump’s immunity claim, he could still face charges for trying to overturn the 2020 election in Washington, D.C., before this November’s election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two more cases are more likely to come later — in Atlanta, where Trump faces state charges for his 2020 election plot, and in Florida, where he’s tentatively scheduled for a May trial on improper retention of classified documents after leaving the presidency, but the trial date is expected to be postponed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Monday was a win Trump needed to continue his campaign, but his days in court are far from over.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "Former President Donald Trump scored a clear win at the US Supreme Court on Monday, which unanimously ruled that states don’t have the ability to bar him — or any other federal candidates — from the ballot under a rarely used constitutional provision. ",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1727475550,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 31,
"wordCount": 1239
},
"headData": {
"title": "Takeaways From Trump's Supreme Court Win: He Stays on Ballot, but Legal Peril Looms | KQED",
"description": "Former President Donald Trump scored a clear win at the US Supreme Court on Monday, which unanimously ruled that states don’t have the ability to bar him — or any other federal candidates — from the ballot under a rarely used constitutional provision. ",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Takeaways From Trump's Supreme Court Win: He Stays on Ballot, but Legal Peril Looms",
"datePublished": "2024-03-04T14:00:19-08:00",
"dateModified": "2024-09-27T15:19:10-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"nprByline": "Nicholas Riccardi\u003cbr>The Associated Press\u003c/br>",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"showOnAuthorArchivePages": "No",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11977992/takeaways-from-trumps-supreme-court-win-he-stays-on-ballot-but-legal-peril-looms",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Former President \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump\">Donald Trump gained\u003c/a> a clear win at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, which unanimously ruled that states don’t have the ability to bar him — or any other federal candidates — from the ballot under a rarely-used constitutional provision that prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The decision shuts down a push in dozens of states to end Trump’s candidacy through a clause in the 14th Amendment, written to prevent former Confederates from serving in government after the Civil War.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But it may open the door to further electoral uncertainty, exposing more state officials to disqualification under the provision and setting up a constitutional showdown should Trump win the election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Facing four separate criminal trials, Trump’s legal peril may just be beginning. So is the Supreme Court’s role in that process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here are some takeaways:\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003cstrong>A technical, but still big win\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>The most significant thing the court did Monday was to overturn a Colorado Supreme Court ruling from December that Trump was not eligible to be president because he violated the insurrection clause, Section 3, of the 14th Amendment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_11975149,news_11973899,news_11977488",
"label": "Related Stories "
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>This will also stop efforts to kick him off the ballot in Illinois, Maine and other states. Had the Supreme Court let the Colorado ruling stand, it could have triggered a new wave of litigation that might have left Trump disqualified in many states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The high court avoided addressing the politically contentious issue of whether Trump played a role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol that would have barred him from seeking office. The ruling is almost devoid of references to Jan. 6 or insurrection and doesn’t address whether Trump committed such an act by sparking the attack on the Capitol.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Instead, it focuses on the technical, procedural question of who gets to decide an election challenge under Section 3.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>All nine justices agreed that is the purview of Congress. But a narrower majority of five went further, ruling it can only be done through legislation. That exposes significant splits underneath the unanimous majority and points toward the greatest uncertainty the ruling creates.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>A time bomb for Jan. 6, 2025?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>One possible outcome that the case presented was the prospect of unelected judges disqualifying the man dominating who has already received hundreds of thousands of votes in the nominating process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But another potential nightmare is that if Congress is the only entity that can determine whether a presidential hopeful is indeed disqualified for engaging in “insurrection,” it makes that determination on Jan. 6, 2025, when required to certify a possible Trump victory in the presidential election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The high court shut down the first possibility but may have left the door open to the second one. The five-justice majority — all from the court’s conservative wing — said Congress can implement Section 3 through legislation, “subject of course to judicial review.” (That means the court reserves for itself the right to have the final say.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That triggered a dissent from the court’s three liberals, who complained that that “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That would appear to include a rejection of Trump’s electors should he win the election — but multiple legal experts said Monday that it wasn’t that clear, and the only way to know may be for Congress to try.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Feeling the heat\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>The 14th Amendment case is one of two, putting the high court squarely amid the ongoing presidential election. Last week, the court agreed to hear Trump’s appeal of a federal ruling that he’s not entitled to immunity from criminal charges for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Trump’s trial on those charges was originally scheduled to begin Monday but has been postponed because of the battle over his immunity challenge. The high court taking up his appeal in late April raises the possibility that the trial won’t conclude until after the presidential election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices’ discomfort over being put in the middle of the nation’s partisan divide came through in a brief but notable concurring opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Though one of the court’s conservatives, she disagreed with the majority’s ruling that Congress can only enforce Section 3 through legislation. But she didn’t want to sign onto the liberals’ dissent, either; instead, she warned against focusing too much on partisan divisions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“… this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case,” she concluded. “That is the message Americans should take home.”\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Action in the states\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>The court’s ruling shuts off using Section 3 against federal officials absent action by Congress, but it leaves open the ability of states to use the provision against their own state officials, noting there’s a rich record after the Civil War of just those sorts of actions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That’s already begun anew in the post-Jan. 6 era. The first disqualification under Section 3 in more than a century came in 2022, when a New Mexico court removed Couy Griffin, who was convicted of entering the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6 while leading a group called “Cowboys for Trump,” from his rural county commission.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The group that brought that case, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, next filed the Colorado case against Trump. They said they were eager to continue filing Section 3 cases against lower-level Jan. 6 participants.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Trump’s legal travails ahead\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Few observers expected the Supreme Court to keep Trump off the ballot. But he’s facing a far more perilous legal road ahead.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The first of Trump’s criminal trials for allegedly falsifying business records to pay hush money to an adult film actress during the 2016 presidential campaign is scheduled to start in New York later this month. The former president is also appealing a New York judge’s ruling that he pay $355 million for fraud committed by his businesses and verdict that he pay a writer $83 million for defaming her after she sued him for sexual assault.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Depending on how and how quickly the high court rules on Trump’s immunity claim, he could still face charges for trying to overturn the 2020 election in Washington, D.C., before this November’s election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two more cases are more likely to come later — in Atlanta, where Trump faces state charges for his 2020 election plot, and in Florida, where he’s tentatively scheduled for a May trial on improper retention of classified documents after leaving the presidency, but the trial date is expected to be postponed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Monday was a win Trump needed to continue his campaign, but his days in court are far from over.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/11977992/takeaways-from-trumps-supreme-court-win-he-stays-on-ballot-but-legal-peril-looms",
"authors": [
"byline_news_11977992"
],
"categories": [
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_29011",
"news_1323",
"news_32839",
"news_27626",
"news_932"
],
"featImg": "news_11977999",
"label": "news"
},
"news_11977488": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11977488",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11977488",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1709164596000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 253
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1709164596,
"format": "standard",
"title": "Supreme Court to Hear Trump's Jan. 6 Immunity Claim, With Arguments Set for April",
"headTitle": "Supreme Court to Hear Trump’s Jan. 6 Immunity Claim, With Arguments Set for April | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2024/02/28/1231974416/supreme-court-trump-immunity#:~:text=Trump%20appeals%20immunity%20ruling%20to%20the%20Supreme%20Court&text=At%20issue%20in%20the%20case,in%20on%20such%20a%20claim.\">U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments \u003c/a>the week of April 22 in a high-stakes dispute over whether former President Donald Trump enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The order from the court on Wednesday keeps Trump’s prosecution in the Jan. 6 case on hold for at least a few more months.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices said, in an unsigned order, that their review would be limited to a single question: “Whether and if so, to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The issue is one of first impression for the Supreme Court since no former president has ever faced criminal charges.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The decision amounts to, at minimum, another short-term victory for Trump, and it means the trial originally set to begin in Washington, D.C., in early March could be delayed until late summer or even after Election Day in November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Trump, the Republican front-runner in this year’s presidential election, has argued that the case amounts to election interference and that going to trial this year would burden his ability to run a political campaign. His attorneys said it would be a challenge to sift through the heavy volume of documents in this case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Trump is fighting 91 criminal charges in four jurisdictions. The charges are related to his effort to cling to power after he lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden and other alleged misdeeds that involve retention of classified documents and hush money payments to an adult film actress.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Special counsel Jack Smith had urged the Supreme Court to swiftly reject Trump’s claims, arguing the charged crimes “strike at the heart of our democracy.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former President for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the Presidential election, including through the use of official power,” Smith and his team wrote in a recent filing to the justices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2024/02/06/1223904739/trump-immunity-ruling\">Three judges on the federal appeals court \u003c/a>in Washington, D.C., unanimously sided with prosecutors this month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[pullquote align=\"right\" size=\"medium\" citation=\"US Court of Appeals DC Circuit judges\"]‘We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. … [This] would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three branches.’[/pullquote]“We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” the D.C. circuit judges wrote. Doing so, they said, “would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three branches.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The panel said that Trump’s immunity argument has virtually no limit; indeed, at oral argument, when Trump’s lawyer was pressed by the panel, he conceded that a President could order Seal Team 6 to assassinate his political rivals and still be free from any criminal prosecution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In their appeal to the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers contended that “Such hypotheticals provide fodder for histrionic media coverage, but they are a poor substitute for legal and historical analysis. They called the appellate court decision a “stunning breach of precedent and historical norms.” And they noted that no prior president has ever been prosecuted for his official acts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv>\n\u003cp>President Richard Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Watergate scandal that saw many of his highest-ranking aides go to prison. But after Nixon resigned, he was pardoned by President Gerald Ford.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So the question of presidential immunity has never been resolved by the Supreme Court. In 1974, the justices ruled unanimously that Nixon, then still in office, had to comply with a subpoena for 64 White House tape recordings that were subsequently used as evidence in the prosecution of many top administration officials. The Nixon tapes case thus became the leading precedent suggesting that presidents do not have complete immunity for acts they commit while in office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The contrary precedent, cited by Trump’s lawyers, is a civil case that was decided eight years later and also involving Nixon. In that case, the court ruled 5-to-4 that the former president could not be sued by an air force whistleblower who claimed he was fired in retaliation for his disclosures about cost overruns.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[aside label=\"Related Stories\" postID=\"news_11975149,forum_2010101904337,news_11971063\"]The consequences of Wednesday’s Supreme Court action remain murky at best. A judge in New York already has ordered jury selection to begin March 25 in a separate state case accusing Trump of recordkeeping violations for hush-money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels weeks before the 2016 election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The judge in the D.C. election interference case, Tanya Chutkan, has not yet indicated when a trial could begin. But in court papers, she’s suggested she will give Trump’s attorneys a few more months to prepare.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>All that can be said with certainty now is that the clock is ticking. If Trump regains the White House, he could order his Justice Department to drop the case related to the Jan. 6, 2021, siege on the Capitol or even attempt to pardon himself.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The immunity issue is far from the only question involving Trump to reach the nation’s highest court. The justices have yet to decide a separate dispute about whether Trump is disqualified from the \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1229176555/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot\">primary ballot in Colorado \u003c/a>over his efforts to cling to power after he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And they’ve scheduled an argument in another case related to the Capitol riot for April 16. In that case, they’ll consider whether prosecutors overreached when they used an obstruction law Congress passed after financial scandals to charge hundreds of people with disrupting the electoral count.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two of the four charges against Trump in the D.C. prosecution could be wiped away if a majority of the Supreme Court determines that the Justice Department’s charging strategy went too far.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1081,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 24
},
"modified": 1709166788,
"excerpt": "The decision is seen as a victory for Trump as it means the trial originally set to begin in Washington, DC, in early March could be delayed until late summer or even after Election Day in November.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The decision is seen as a victory for Trump as it means the trial originally set to begin in Washington, DC, in early March could be delayed until late summer or even after Election Day in November.",
"title": "Supreme Court to Hear Trump's Jan. 6 Immunity Claim, With Arguments Set for April | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Supreme Court to Hear Trump's Jan. 6 Immunity Claim, With Arguments Set for April",
"datePublished": "2024-02-28T15:56:36-08:00",
"dateModified": "2024-02-28T16:33:08-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-court-to-hear-trumps-jan-6-immunity-claim-with-arguments-set-for-april",
"status": "publish",
"nprByline": "\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/people/127410674/carrie-johnson\">Carrie Johnson\u003c/a>, \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/people/2101289/nina-totenberg\">Nina Totenberg\u003c/a>",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"sticky": false,
"showOnAuthorArchivePages": "No",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11977488/supreme-court-to-hear-trumps-jan-6-immunity-claim-with-arguments-set-for-april",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2024/02/28/1231974416/supreme-court-trump-immunity#:~:text=Trump%20appeals%20immunity%20ruling%20to%20the%20Supreme%20Court&text=At%20issue%20in%20the%20case,in%20on%20such%20a%20claim.\">U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments \u003c/a>the week of April 22 in a high-stakes dispute over whether former President Donald Trump enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The order from the court on Wednesday keeps Trump’s prosecution in the Jan. 6 case on hold for at least a few more months.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices said, in an unsigned order, that their review would be limited to a single question: “Whether and if so, to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The issue is one of first impression for the Supreme Court since no former president has ever faced criminal charges.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The decision amounts to, at minimum, another short-term victory for Trump, and it means the trial originally set to begin in Washington, D.C., in early March could be delayed until late summer or even after Election Day in November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Trump, the Republican front-runner in this year’s presidential election, has argued that the case amounts to election interference and that going to trial this year would burden his ability to run a political campaign. His attorneys said it would be a challenge to sift through the heavy volume of documents in this case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Trump is fighting 91 criminal charges in four jurisdictions. The charges are related to his effort to cling to power after he lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden and other alleged misdeeds that involve retention of classified documents and hush money payments to an adult film actress.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Special counsel Jack Smith had urged the Supreme Court to swiftly reject Trump’s claims, arguing the charged crimes “strike at the heart of our democracy.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former President for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the Presidential election, including through the use of official power,” Smith and his team wrote in a recent filing to the justices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2024/02/06/1223904739/trump-immunity-ruling\">Three judges on the federal appeals court \u003c/a>in Washington, D.C., unanimously sided with prosecutors this month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "‘We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. … [This] would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three branches.’",
"name": "pullquote",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"align": "right",
"size": "medium",
"citation": "US Court of Appeals DC Circuit judges",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>“We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” the D.C. circuit judges wrote. Doing so, they said, “would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three branches.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The panel said that Trump’s immunity argument has virtually no limit; indeed, at oral argument, when Trump’s lawyer was pressed by the panel, he conceded that a President could order Seal Team 6 to assassinate his political rivals and still be free from any criminal prosecution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In their appeal to the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers contended that “Such hypotheticals provide fodder for histrionic media coverage, but they are a poor substitute for legal and historical analysis. They called the appellate court decision a “stunning breach of precedent and historical norms.” And they noted that no prior president has ever been prosecuted for his official acts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv>\n\u003cp>President Richard Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Watergate scandal that saw many of his highest-ranking aides go to prison. But after Nixon resigned, he was pardoned by President Gerald Ford.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So the question of presidential immunity has never been resolved by the Supreme Court. In 1974, the justices ruled unanimously that Nixon, then still in office, had to comply with a subpoena for 64 White House tape recordings that were subsequently used as evidence in the prosecution of many top administration officials. The Nixon tapes case thus became the leading precedent suggesting that presidents do not have complete immunity for acts they commit while in office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The contrary precedent, cited by Trump’s lawyers, is a civil case that was decided eight years later and also involving Nixon. In that case, the court ruled 5-to-4 that the former president could not be sued by an air force whistleblower who claimed he was fired in retaliation for his disclosures about cost overruns.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "Related Stories ",
"postid": "news_11975149,forum_2010101904337,news_11971063"
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>The consequences of Wednesday’s Supreme Court action remain murky at best. A judge in New York already has ordered jury selection to begin March 25 in a separate state case accusing Trump of recordkeeping violations for hush-money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels weeks before the 2016 election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The judge in the D.C. election interference case, Tanya Chutkan, has not yet indicated when a trial could begin. But in court papers, she’s suggested she will give Trump’s attorneys a few more months to prepare.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>All that can be said with certainty now is that the clock is ticking. If Trump regains the White House, he could order his Justice Department to drop the case related to the Jan. 6, 2021, siege on the Capitol or even attempt to pardon himself.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The immunity issue is far from the only question involving Trump to reach the nation’s highest court. The justices have yet to decide a separate dispute about whether Trump is disqualified from the \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1229176555/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot\">primary ballot in Colorado \u003c/a>over his efforts to cling to power after he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And they’ve scheduled an argument in another case related to the Capitol riot for April 16. In that case, they’ll consider whether prosecutors overreached when they used an obstruction law Congress passed after financial scandals to charge hundreds of people with disrupting the electoral count.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two of the four charges against Trump in the D.C. prosecution could be wiped away if a majority of the Supreme Court determines that the Justice Department’s charging strategy went too far.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/11977488/supreme-court-to-hear-trumps-jan-6-immunity-claim-with-arguments-set-for-april",
"authors": [
"byline_news_11977488"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_1323",
"news_32255",
"news_932"
],
"affiliates": [
"news_253"
],
"featImg": "news_11977491",
"label": "news_253"
},
"news_11975149": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11975149",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11975149",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1707445828000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1707445828,
"format": "audio",
"title": "Why the Supreme Court Seems Poised to Hand Trump a Victory",
"headTitle": "Why the Supreme Court Seems Poised to Hand Trump a Victory | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>Another day in court for former President Donald Trump — this time, the Supreme Court considers whether he can be taken off the Colorado presidential ballot. Marisa and Scott talk with Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, about the oral arguments and other legal questions Trump is facing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 55,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 3
},
"modified": 1707440160,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Another day in court for former President Donald Trump — this time, the Supreme Court considers whether he can be taken off the Colorado presidential ballot. Marisa and Scott talk with Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, about the oral arguments and other legal questions Trump is facing.",
"title": "Why the Supreme Court Seems Poised to Hand Trump a Victory | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Why the Supreme Court Seems Poised to Hand Trump a Victory",
"datePublished": "2024-02-08T18:30:28-08:00",
"dateModified": "2024-02-08T16:56:00-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "why-the-supreme-court-seems-poised-to-hand-trump-a-victory",
"status": "publish",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC5326779217.mp3?updated=1707440406",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"sticky": false,
"source": "Political Breakdown",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11975149/why-the-supreme-court-seems-poised-to-hand-trump-a-victory",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Another day in court for former President Donald Trump — this time, the Supreme Court considers whether he can be taken off the Colorado presidential ballot. Marisa and Scott talk with Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, about the oral arguments and other legal questions Trump is facing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/11975149/why-the-supreme-court-seems-poised-to-hand-trump-a-victory",
"authors": [
"3239",
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_33544"
],
"categories": [
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_33810",
"news_1323",
"news_32839",
"news_22235",
"news_17968",
"news_932",
"news_33809"
],
"featImg": "news_11975151",
"label": "source_news_11975149"
},
"news_11958412": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11958412",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11958412",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1692227072000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "federal-court-rules-to-limit-access-to-abortion-pill-as-drug-remains-available",
"title": "Federal Court Rules to Limit Access to Abortion Pill as Drug Remains Available",
"publishDate": 1692227072,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Federal Court Rules to Limit Access to Abortion Pill as Drug Remains Available | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 253,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that mifepristone, one of two pills used in medication abortions, should not be prescribed past seven weeks of pregnancy or via telemedicine. However, a previous stay by the Supreme Court means this won’t go into effect right away.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The pills will remain on the market and available by telemedicine and mail for the time being.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a \u003ca href=\"https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/AHM-5thCircuitRuling.pdf\">93-page ruling (PDF)\u003c/a>, the 5\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans sided with \u003ca href=\"https://adfmedia.org/case/alliance-hippocratic-medicine-v-us-food-and-drug-administration\">plaintiffs\u003c/a> that want to restrict use of mifepristone, a pill used in medication abortions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Alliance Defending Freedom, which brought the case, cheered the opinion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This is a significant victory for the doctors and medical associations we represent and, more importantly, the health and safety of women,” says Erin Hawley, the senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The federal Department of Justice is defending the Food and Drug Administration in the case. A spokesperson for DOJ said the department strongly disagrees with the ruling and is looking for the Supreme Court to review it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at the University of California, Davis who has written books about the history of abortion, said she was not surprised by the decision. “My impression is that this is the Fifth Circuit trying to resurrect what had been a pretty flawed case in the hope that this Supreme Court is conservative enough that there’s no case too weak or extreme, really, for this court on abortion,” says Ziegler.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court is likely to hear the case in the fall, possibly with another \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2023/02/25/1159565357/washington-state-attorney-general-says-fda-rules-on-abortion-drug-are-unreasonab\">case from Washington state\u003c/a> that seeks to expand access to the medicine.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case is an unprecedented challenge to the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to approve medications.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A three judge panel of the 5\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> Circuit heard arguments in the case in May. All three judges were appointed by Republicans. Two are Trump appointees, one was appointed by George W. Bush.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Mifepristone and misoprostol, the two-drug regimen, is used in about 50% of abortions now. Since its approval by the FDA in 2000, the drug has been used for abortions by more than 5 million women in the U.S. A \u003ca href=\"https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-availability-and-use-of-medication-abortion/\">study from KFF, an independent health policy organization\u003c/a>, determined that medication abortion successfully terminates pregnancy 99.6% of the time. The foundation found a 0.4% risk of major complications and a mortality rate of less than 0.001%.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The crux of the plaintiffs’ case concerns those rare complications. Attorney Hawley, who is married to Sen. Josh Hawley, the Republican from Missouri, argued that physicians who oppose abortion would be facing a moral injury if they had to care for a woman after a complication after taking mifepristone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv class=\"fullattribution\">Copyright 2023 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" src=\"https://www.google-analytics.com/__utm.gif?utmac=UA-5828686-4&utmdt=Ruling+deals+blow+to+access+to+abortion+pill+mifepristone+%E2%80%94+but+nothing+changes+yet&utme=8(APIKey)9(MDAxOTAwOTE4MDEyMTkxMDAzNjczZDljZA004)\">\u003c/div>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "A federal appeals court would restrict the use of mifepristone, a pill used in medication abortions. But previous action by the Supreme Court means the status quo holds for now.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1721146463,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 14,
"wordCount": 474
},
"headData": {
"title": "Federal Court Rules to Limit Access to Abortion Pill as Drug Remains Available | KQED",
"description": "A federal appeals court would restrict the use of mifepristone, a pill used in medication abortions. But previous action by the Supreme Court means the status quo holds for now.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Federal Court Rules to Limit Access to Abortion Pill as Drug Remains Available",
"datePublished": "2023-08-16T16:04:32-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-07-16T09:14:23-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"nprImageCredit": "Charlie Riedel",
"nprByline": "\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/people/349308023/selena-simmons-duffin\">Selena Simmons-Duffin\u003c/a> and Diane Webber",
"nprImageAgency": "AP",
"nprStoryId": "1194280392",
"nprApiLink": "http://api.npr.org/query?id=1194280392&apiKey=MDAxOTAwOTE4MDEyMTkxMDAzNjczZDljZA004",
"nprHtmlLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/08/16/1194280392/ruling-deals-blow-to-access-to-abortion-pill-mifepristone-but-nothing-changes-ye?ft=nprml&f=1194280392",
"nprRetrievedStory": "1",
"nprPubDate": "Wed, 16 Aug 2023 18:13:00 -0400",
"nprStoryDate": "Wed, 16 Aug 2023 16:35:03 -0400",
"nprLastModifiedDate": "Wed, 16 Aug 2023 18:13:55 -0400",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"showOnAuthorArchivePages": "No",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11958412/federal-court-rules-to-limit-access-to-abortion-pill-as-drug-remains-available",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that mifepristone, one of two pills used in medication abortions, should not be prescribed past seven weeks of pregnancy or via telemedicine. However, a previous stay by the Supreme Court means this won’t go into effect right away.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The pills will remain on the market and available by telemedicine and mail for the time being.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a \u003ca href=\"https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/AHM-5thCircuitRuling.pdf\">93-page ruling (PDF)\u003c/a>, the 5\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans sided with \u003ca href=\"https://adfmedia.org/case/alliance-hippocratic-medicine-v-us-food-and-drug-administration\">plaintiffs\u003c/a> that want to restrict use of mifepristone, a pill used in medication abortions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Alliance Defending Freedom, which brought the case, cheered the opinion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This is a significant victory for the doctors and medical associations we represent and, more importantly, the health and safety of women,” says Erin Hawley, the senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The federal Department of Justice is defending the Food and Drug Administration in the case. A spokesperson for DOJ said the department strongly disagrees with the ruling and is looking for the Supreme Court to review it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at the University of California, Davis who has written books about the history of abortion, said she was not surprised by the decision. “My impression is that this is the Fifth Circuit trying to resurrect what had been a pretty flawed case in the hope that this Supreme Court is conservative enough that there’s no case too weak or extreme, really, for this court on abortion,” says Ziegler.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court is likely to hear the case in the fall, possibly with another \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2023/02/25/1159565357/washington-state-attorney-general-says-fda-rules-on-abortion-drug-are-unreasonab\">case from Washington state\u003c/a> that seeks to expand access to the medicine.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case is an unprecedented challenge to the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to approve medications.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A three judge panel of the 5\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> Circuit heard arguments in the case in May. All three judges were appointed by Republicans. Two are Trump appointees, one was appointed by George W. Bush.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Mifepristone and misoprostol, the two-drug regimen, is used in about 50% of abortions now. Since its approval by the FDA in 2000, the drug has been used for abortions by more than 5 million women in the U.S. A \u003ca href=\"https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-availability-and-use-of-medication-abortion/\">study from KFF, an independent health policy organization\u003c/a>, determined that medication abortion successfully terminates pregnancy 99.6% of the time. The foundation found a 0.4% risk of major complications and a mortality rate of less than 0.001%.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The crux of the plaintiffs’ case concerns those rare complications. Attorney Hawley, who is married to Sen. Josh Hawley, the Republican from Missouri, argued that physicians who oppose abortion would be facing a moral injury if they had to care for a woman after a complication after taking mifepristone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv class=\"fullattribution\">Copyright 2023 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" src=\"https://www.google-analytics.com/__utm.gif?utmac=UA-5828686-4&utmdt=Ruling+deals+blow+to+access+to+abortion+pill+mifepristone+%E2%80%94+but+nothing+changes+yet&utme=8(APIKey)9(MDAxOTAwOTE4MDEyMTkxMDAzNjczZDljZA004)\">\u003c/div>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/11958412/federal-court-rules-to-limit-access-to-abortion-pill-as-drug-remains-available",
"authors": [
"byline_news_11958412"
],
"categories": [
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_866",
"news_932"
],
"affiliates": [
"news_253"
],
"featImg": "news_11958413",
"label": "news_253"
},
"news_11955680": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11955680",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11955680",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1689356205000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "explaining-303-creative-decision",
"title": "303 Creative: When Free Speech and LGBTQ+ Rights Collide",
"publishDate": 1689356205,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "303 Creative: When Free Speech and LGBTQ+ Rights Collide | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>In the last days of June, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11954612/u-s-supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-barring-california-private-universities-from-considering-race-in-admissions\">the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action\u003c/a>, opened the door to LGBTQ+ discrimination and \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11954741/supreme-court-student-loan-decision-how-affects-you\">outlawed the Biden administration’s plan to forgive student loans\u003c/a>. These are monumental rulings that directly affect people of color, queer folks, prospective college students and the 43 million Americans with federal student loans — leaving many devastated and fearful for the future.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/tag/explaining-the-supreme-court\">our series explaining this summer’s Supreme Court decisions\u003c/a>, we’re unpacking how these rulings will affect you — and what can be done now. This explainer focuses on the case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis — which saw the court rule in favor of a web designer who refused to make wedding websites for gay couples — and what it could mean for discrimination against LGBTQ+ folks in the United States.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED gathered legal and judicial insight on this ruling at a panel hosted at Manny’s, a community space in San Francisco. On this panel were:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://www.keker.com/Lawyers/courtney-j-liss\">Courtney Liss\u003c/a>, associate at San Francisco law firm Keker, Van Nest and Peters\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://www.keker.com/Lawyers/Harris-Cody\">Cody Harris\u003c/a>, partner at Keker, Van Nest and Peters\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://www.uchastings.edu/people/matt-coles/\">Matthew Coles\u003c/a>, professor of practice at UC Law San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings)\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003ch2>What was the Supreme Court’s decision about LGBTQ+ discrimination?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that a Christian graphic artist who designs wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"#tellus\">\u003cstrong>Tell us: What else do you need information about right now?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s liberal justices, wrote in a dissent that the decision’s effect is to “mark gays and lesbians for second-class status” and that the ruling opens the door to further discrimination. \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1182121291/colorado-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision\">Read more about the case from NPR\u003c/a> or read \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf\">the Supreme Court’s ruling (PDF)\u003c/a> for yourself.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>What will change for queer people in the US after this case?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>This ruling has opened the door for LGBTQ+ people to be discriminated against when requesting services from certain professionals, says UC Law San Francisco’s Coles, specifically in situations involving the use of words or the creation of images and films.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Why? Smith \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf\">framed her website services as “expressive in nature” (PDF)\u003c/a> because she designed them to be customized, original and intended “to communicate a particular message.” Consequently, other professionals operating what could be termed an “expressive business” could use this ruling to deny service to LGBTQ+ people as well.[aside label='Unpacking the Recent Supreme Court Decisions' tag='explaining-the-supreme-court']Coles’ advice to folks in the community? “Find out in advance whether this business has said that it doesn’t want to serve [queer people],” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Practically, the website case now means that someone like Lorie Smith, the Colorado graphic designer, can refuse service to LGBTQ+ folks “without fear of government sanction on them,” said Harris of Keker, Van Nest and Peters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harris adds that hate speech laws as most people think of them — those that would make it a crime to say something hateful — don’t really exist. Hate speech is “awful and odious, and it makes me angry,” he said, “but it’s constitutional.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>How was this case even won?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Lorie Smith, the web designer involved in the case, was challenging her home state of Colorado’s public accommodations law — the type of law that, in most states, bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. Her claim was that the state was unconstitutionally forcing her to create a message she opposes because she can’t deny service to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court sided with Smith, ruling that forcing her to create websites for queer couples would violate her free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Smith should have lost her case on several fronts, said Coles — just one being that her website work “is commercial speech,” and not personal expression (free speech), because Smith “was being paid to write words for somebody else.” And it’s well-established, says Coles, that commercial speech is not as protected as other forms of speech.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court ignored this analysis of the First Amendment in its ruling, says Coles. A majority of the justices, he adds, believe that if Smith created websites for same-sex couples, she would be forced to use words to celebrate things she does not want to celebrate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Responding to \u003ca href=\"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/supreme-court-web-designer-fake-case-b2370226.html\">lingering questions over the legitimacy of this case\u003c/a> — namely, whether the web designer in question had ever really been asked to design a site for a gay wedding — Coles said he didn’t think it’s “a fake case.” The real question, he said, is whether the designer has taken steps to “start working on websites or not — and the answer is yes. She made a pretty decent showing in the court that she’d done a lot of research. She had models together.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Notions of this being a “fake case” get away from the point, says Liss, of Van Nest and Peters. She stresses that this case is “an important door,” one that this court has chosen to open and go through by taking up the case in the first place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11955692\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2560px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11955692\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/GettyImages-972695008-scaled.jpg\" alt=\"A rainbow flag hangs over a government building.\" width=\"2560\" height=\"1707\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">San Francisco-based attorney Courtney Liss advises businesses to make it very clear that they \u003cem>do\u003c/em> want to provide services to LGBTQ+ communities, with signs and clear website notices. ‘I personally do not want to go anywhere where I’m not welcome,’ she said. \u003ccite>(JasonDoiy/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003ch2>What could the long-term ramifications of this case be?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Coles says that what surprised him about the Supreme Court’s decision was that it did not draw upon the clause in the Constitution that protects people’s right to practice their religion. Instead, the ruling draws upon the free speech clause, “because [Lorie Smith] was involved in expressive conduct.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Coles believes that the Court’s conservative justices disagree on how to interpret the free exercise-of-religion clause. But he cautions that there may come a day when the conservative justices privilege religious exemptions in their rulings. “And that religious exception to nondiscrimination laws is not going to be limited to expressive businesses,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Run through the list of everything that we’ve managed to cover with our civil rights laws,” Coles said, referring to protections for race, religion, gender and disability. By itself, he said, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is “not going to completely eviscerate discrimination laws,” but he believes it “portends something in the future, which is a good deal worse.”\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>How can you voice your opposition to this ruling?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court’s recent raft of rulings against LGBTQ+ rights, affirmative action and student loan forgiveness has drawn vehement criticism sharply focused on the Court’s conservative supermajority. For example, in speaking out against the student loan decision, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11954741/supreme-court-student-loan-decision-how-affects-you\">U.S Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) called the body a “corrupt, right-wing court.”\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Criticism of the court’s rulings has also come from within, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying that the website designer ruling saw the Supreme Court “taking steps backward.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people,” she added. “The immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[aside label='More Guides from KQED' tag='kqed-guides']Coles notes that at the end of the student loan decision, Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent features a “very pointed dialogue” that strongly criticizes the Supreme Court for what she sees as violations of the separation of powers in their ruling — and that Justice John Roberts’ reply bristles at the suggestion that the court is not legitimate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“So I think they’re beginning to get sensitive to the notion that there’s a wide, ever-growing public belief that some of what they’re doing is not legitimate,” said Coles of the conservative justices. “It’s really important if you think what they’re doing is not legitimate, to keep voicing that.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Liss urged people to “call your congresspeople and your other elected representatives” to express that, if so. You might also feel like this “legitimacy crisis” is sharpened, she says, by “\u003ca href=\"https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow\">the lack of standards that the Supreme Court holds themselves to in terms of accepting gifts\u003c/a>.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On an everyday scale, Liss advises businesses to make it very clear that they \u003cem>do\u003c/em> want to provide services to LGBTQ+ communities, with signs and clear website notices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I personally do not want to go anywhere where I’m not welcome,” said Liss. “I don’t want to give a single dollar to someone who wouldn’t be excited to take my very gay dollar.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This story contains reporting from The Associated Press.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"tellus\">\u003c/a>Tell us: What else do you need information about?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>At KQED News, we know that it can sometimes be hard to track down the answers to navigate life in the Bay Area in 2023. We’ve published \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/tag/coronavirus-resources-and-explainers\">clear, practical explainers and guides about COVID\u003c/a>, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11936674/how-to-prepare-for-this-weeks-atmospheric-river-storm-sandbags-emergency-kits-and-more\">how to cope with intense winter weather\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11821950/how-to-safely-attend-a-protest-in-the-bay-area\">how to exercise your right to protest safely\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So tell us: What do you need to know more about? Tell us, and you could see your question answered online or on social media. What you submit will make our reporting stronger, and help us decide what to cover here on our site, and on KQED Public Radio, too.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[hearken id=\"10483\" src=\"https://modules.wearehearken.com/kqed/embed/10483.js\"]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "What protections do LGBTQ+ people have in the US against discrimination after the latest Supreme Court ruling? The answers — and what to do about them — are in our guide.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1746618611,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": true,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 32,
"wordCount": 1693
},
"headData": {
"title": "303 Creative Decision: LGBTQ+ Rights & Free Speech | KQED",
"description": "What does the 303 Creative decision mean for LGBTQ+ rights? We break down the ruling and its potential effects on discrimination and free speech.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"socialTitle": "303 Creative Decision: LGBTQ+ Rights & Free Speech | KQED",
"socialDescription": "What does the 303 Creative decision mean for LGBTQ+ rights? We break down the ruling and its potential effects on discrimination and free speech.",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "303 Creative: When Free Speech and LGBTQ+ Rights Collide",
"datePublished": "2023-07-14T10:36:45-07:00",
"dateModified": "2025-05-07T04:50:11-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11955680/explaining-303-creative-decision",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>In the last days of June, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11954612/u-s-supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-barring-california-private-universities-from-considering-race-in-admissions\">the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action\u003c/a>, opened the door to LGBTQ+ discrimination and \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11954741/supreme-court-student-loan-decision-how-affects-you\">outlawed the Biden administration’s plan to forgive student loans\u003c/a>. These are monumental rulings that directly affect people of color, queer folks, prospective college students and the 43 million Americans with federal student loans — leaving many devastated and fearful for the future.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/tag/explaining-the-supreme-court\">our series explaining this summer’s Supreme Court decisions\u003c/a>, we’re unpacking how these rulings will affect you — and what can be done now. This explainer focuses on the case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis — which saw the court rule in favor of a web designer who refused to make wedding websites for gay couples — and what it could mean for discrimination against LGBTQ+ folks in the United States.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED gathered legal and judicial insight on this ruling at a panel hosted at Manny’s, a community space in San Francisco. On this panel were:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://www.keker.com/Lawyers/courtney-j-liss\">Courtney Liss\u003c/a>, associate at San Francisco law firm Keker, Van Nest and Peters\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://www.keker.com/Lawyers/Harris-Cody\">Cody Harris\u003c/a>, partner at Keker, Van Nest and Peters\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://www.uchastings.edu/people/matt-coles/\">Matthew Coles\u003c/a>, professor of practice at UC Law San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings)\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003ch2>What was the Supreme Court’s decision about LGBTQ+ discrimination?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that a Christian graphic artist who designs wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"#tellus\">\u003cstrong>Tell us: What else do you need information about right now?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s liberal justices, wrote in a dissent that the decision’s effect is to “mark gays and lesbians for second-class status” and that the ruling opens the door to further discrimination. \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1182121291/colorado-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision\">Read more about the case from NPR\u003c/a> or read \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf\">the Supreme Court’s ruling (PDF)\u003c/a> for yourself.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>What will change for queer people in the US after this case?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>This ruling has opened the door for LGBTQ+ people to be discriminated against when requesting services from certain professionals, says UC Law San Francisco’s Coles, specifically in situations involving the use of words or the creation of images and films.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Why? Smith \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf\">framed her website services as “expressive in nature” (PDF)\u003c/a> because she designed them to be customized, original and intended “to communicate a particular message.” Consequently, other professionals operating what could be termed an “expressive business” could use this ruling to deny service to LGBTQ+ people as well.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "Unpacking the Recent Supreme Court Decisions ",
"tag": "explaining-the-supreme-court"
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>Coles’ advice to folks in the community? “Find out in advance whether this business has said that it doesn’t want to serve [queer people],” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Practically, the website case now means that someone like Lorie Smith, the Colorado graphic designer, can refuse service to LGBTQ+ folks “without fear of government sanction on them,” said Harris of Keker, Van Nest and Peters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harris adds that hate speech laws as most people think of them — those that would make it a crime to say something hateful — don’t really exist. Hate speech is “awful and odious, and it makes me angry,” he said, “but it’s constitutional.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>How was this case even won?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Lorie Smith, the web designer involved in the case, was challenging her home state of Colorado’s public accommodations law — the type of law that, in most states, bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. Her claim was that the state was unconstitutionally forcing her to create a message she opposes because she can’t deny service to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court sided with Smith, ruling that forcing her to create websites for queer couples would violate her free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Smith should have lost her case on several fronts, said Coles — just one being that her website work “is commercial speech,” and not personal expression (free speech), because Smith “was being paid to write words for somebody else.” And it’s well-established, says Coles, that commercial speech is not as protected as other forms of speech.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court ignored this analysis of the First Amendment in its ruling, says Coles. A majority of the justices, he adds, believe that if Smith created websites for same-sex couples, she would be forced to use words to celebrate things she does not want to celebrate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Responding to \u003ca href=\"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/supreme-court-web-designer-fake-case-b2370226.html\">lingering questions over the legitimacy of this case\u003c/a> — namely, whether the web designer in question had ever really been asked to design a site for a gay wedding — Coles said he didn’t think it’s “a fake case.” The real question, he said, is whether the designer has taken steps to “start working on websites or not — and the answer is yes. She made a pretty decent showing in the court that she’d done a lot of research. She had models together.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Notions of this being a “fake case” get away from the point, says Liss, of Van Nest and Peters. She stresses that this case is “an important door,” one that this court has chosen to open and go through by taking up the case in the first place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11955692\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2560px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11955692\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/GettyImages-972695008-scaled.jpg\" alt=\"A rainbow flag hangs over a government building.\" width=\"2560\" height=\"1707\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">San Francisco-based attorney Courtney Liss advises businesses to make it very clear that they \u003cem>do\u003c/em> want to provide services to LGBTQ+ communities, with signs and clear website notices. ‘I personally do not want to go anywhere where I’m not welcome,’ she said. \u003ccite>(JasonDoiy/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003ch2>What could the long-term ramifications of this case be?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Coles says that what surprised him about the Supreme Court’s decision was that it did not draw upon the clause in the Constitution that protects people’s right to practice their religion. Instead, the ruling draws upon the free speech clause, “because [Lorie Smith] was involved in expressive conduct.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Coles believes that the Court’s conservative justices disagree on how to interpret the free exercise-of-religion clause. But he cautions that there may come a day when the conservative justices privilege religious exemptions in their rulings. “And that religious exception to nondiscrimination laws is not going to be limited to expressive businesses,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Run through the list of everything that we’ve managed to cover with our civil rights laws,” Coles said, referring to protections for race, religion, gender and disability. By itself, he said, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is “not going to completely eviscerate discrimination laws,” but he believes it “portends something in the future, which is a good deal worse.”\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>How can you voice your opposition to this ruling?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court’s recent raft of rulings against LGBTQ+ rights, affirmative action and student loan forgiveness has drawn vehement criticism sharply focused on the Court’s conservative supermajority. For example, in speaking out against the student loan decision, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11954741/supreme-court-student-loan-decision-how-affects-you\">U.S Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) called the body a “corrupt, right-wing court.”\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Criticism of the court’s rulings has also come from within, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying that the website designer ruling saw the Supreme Court “taking steps backward.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people,” she added. “The immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "More Guides from KQED ",
"tag": "kqed-guides"
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>Coles notes that at the end of the student loan decision, Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent features a “very pointed dialogue” that strongly criticizes the Supreme Court for what she sees as violations of the separation of powers in their ruling — and that Justice John Roberts’ reply bristles at the suggestion that the court is not legitimate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“So I think they’re beginning to get sensitive to the notion that there’s a wide, ever-growing public belief that some of what they’re doing is not legitimate,” said Coles of the conservative justices. “It’s really important if you think what they’re doing is not legitimate, to keep voicing that.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Liss urged people to “call your congresspeople and your other elected representatives” to express that, if so. You might also feel like this “legitimacy crisis” is sharpened, she says, by “\u003ca href=\"https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow\">the lack of standards that the Supreme Court holds themselves to in terms of accepting gifts\u003c/a>.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On an everyday scale, Liss advises businesses to make it very clear that they \u003cem>do\u003c/em> want to provide services to LGBTQ+ communities, with signs and clear website notices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I personally do not want to go anywhere where I’m not welcome,” said Liss. “I don’t want to give a single dollar to someone who wouldn’t be excited to take my very gay dollar.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This story contains reporting from The Associated Press.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"tellus\">\u003c/a>Tell us: What else do you need information about?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>At KQED News, we know that it can sometimes be hard to track down the answers to navigate life in the Bay Area in 2023. We’ve published \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/tag/coronavirus-resources-and-explainers\">clear, practical explainers and guides about COVID\u003c/a>, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11936674/how-to-prepare-for-this-weeks-atmospheric-river-storm-sandbags-emergency-kits-and-more\">how to cope with intense winter weather\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11821950/how-to-safely-attend-a-protest-in-the-bay-area\">how to exercise your right to protest safely\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So tell us: What do you need to know more about? Tell us, and you could see your question answered online or on social media. What you submit will make our reporting stronger, and help us decide what to cover here on our site, and on KQED Public Radio, too.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "hearken",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"id": "10483",
"src": "https://modules.wearehearken.com/kqed/embed/10483.js",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/11955680/explaining-303-creative-decision",
"authors": [
"3243"
],
"categories": [
"news_34167",
"news_6188",
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_32707",
"news_17725",
"news_32909",
"news_27626",
"news_26702",
"news_82",
"news_17896",
"news_20004",
"news_20003",
"news_201",
"news_932",
"news_18037"
],
"featImg": "news_11955693",
"label": "news"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"radioSearchSegmentsReducer": {},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9a90d476-aa04-455d-9a4c-0871ed6216d4/bay-curious",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26099305-72af-4542-9dde-ac1807fe36d5/kqed-s-the-california-report",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/44420f75-3b0e-4301-ab3b-16da6b09e543/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Perspectives",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e0c2d153-ad36-4c8d-901d-f1da6a724824/political-breakdown",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Snap Judgment",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Spooked",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d800ea4c-7a2c-42f2-b861-edaf78a5db0b/the-bay",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026Reducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026PresidentialReducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?tag=supreme-court": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 12,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 92,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_12027571",
"news_12016282",
"news_11992777",
"news_11981042",
"news_11980822",
"news_11980696",
"news_11979853",
"news_11977992",
"news_11977488",
"news_11975149",
"news_11958412",
"news_11955680"
],
"complete": true
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"newslettersReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"newsletters": {},
"isSubscribing": false,
"isUnsubscribing": false,
"subscribedNewsletters": {}
},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"careers": {
"name": "Careers",
"type": "terms",
"id": "careers",
"slug": "careers",
"link": "/careers",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"newsletters": {
"name": "newsletters",
"type": "terms",
"id": "newsletters",
"slug": "newsletters",
"link": "/newsletters",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news_tag_supreme-court": {
"isLoading": true
},
"news_932": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_932",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "932",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "supreme court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "supreme court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 942,
"slug": "supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/supreme-court"
},
"source_news_12027571": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_12027571",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "The Bay",
"link": "https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/thebay",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_11975149": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11975149",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"isLoading": false
},
"news_8": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_8",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "8",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "News",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "News Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 8,
"slug": "news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/news"
},
"news_66": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_66",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "66",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Fremont",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Fremont Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 67,
"slug": "fremont",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/fremont"
},
"news_21214": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_21214",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "21214",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "homeless encampments",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "homeless encampments Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 21231,
"slug": "homeless-encampments",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/homeless-encampments"
},
"news_33812": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33812",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33812",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Interests",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Interests Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33829,
"slug": "interests",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/interests"
},
"news_22598": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_22598",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "22598",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "The Bay",
"description": "\u003cimg class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-11638190\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/02/TheBay_1200x6301.png\" alt=\"\" />\r\n\u003cbr/>\r\n\r\nEvery good story starts local. So that’s where we start. \u003ci>The Bay\u003c/i> is storytelling for daily news. KQED host Devin Katayama talks with reporters to help us make sense of what’s happening in the Bay Area. One story. One conversation. One idea.\r\n\r\n\u003cstrong>Subscribe to The Bay:\u003c/strong>\r\n\r\n\u003ca href=\"https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452?mt=2\">\u003cimg src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/01/Listen_on_Apple_Podcasts_sRGB_US-e1515635079510.png\" />\u003c/a>",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "Every good story starts local. So that’s where we start. The Bay is storytelling for daily news. KQED host Devin Katayama talks with reporters to help us make sense of what’s happening in the Bay Area. One story. One conversation. One idea. Subscribe to The Bay:",
"title": "The Bay Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 22615,
"slug": "the-bay",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/the-bay"
},
"news_1895": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1895",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1895",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "affirmative action",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "affirmative action Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1910,
"slug": "affirmative-action",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/affirmative-action"
},
"news_18538": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18538",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18538",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 31,
"slug": "california",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california"
},
"news_32395": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_32395",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "32395",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "DEI",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "DEI Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 32412,
"slug": "dei",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/dei"
},
"news_20228": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20228",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20228",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "discrimination",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "discrimination Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20245,
"slug": "discrimination",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/discrimination"
},
"news_1323": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1323",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1323",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Donald Trump",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Donald Trump Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1335,
"slug": "donald-trump",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/donald-trump"
},
"news_20013": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20013",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20013",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "education",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "education Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20030,
"slug": "education",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/education"
},
"news_2923": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2923",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2923",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "reparations",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "reparations Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2941,
"slug": "reparations",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/reparations"
},
"news_95": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_95",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "95",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Sacramento",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Sacramento Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 411,
"slug": "sacramento",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/sacramento"
},
"news_22493": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_22493",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "22493",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Slavery",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Slavery Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 22510,
"slug": "slavery",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/slavery"
},
"news_33765": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33765",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33765",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "universities",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "universities Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33782,
"slug": "universities",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/universities"
},
"news_33746": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33746",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33746",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Education",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Education Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33763,
"slug": "education",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/education"
},
"news_33733": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33733",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33733",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "News",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "News Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33750,
"slug": "news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/news"
},
"news_13": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_13",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "13",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Politics",
"slug": "politics",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Politics | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 13,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/politics"
},
"news_1386": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1386",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1386",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Bay Area",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Bay Area Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1398,
"slug": "bay-area",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/bay-area"
},
"news_20251": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20251",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20251",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California Democrats",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Democrats Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20268,
"slug": "california-democrats",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california-democrats"
},
"news_717": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_717",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "717",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Joe Biden",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Joe Biden Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 726,
"slug": "joe-biden",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/joe-biden"
},
"news_17968": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_17968",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "17968",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Politics",
"slug": "politics",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Politics | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 18002,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/politics"
},
"news_29111": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_29111",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "29111",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Presidential Election",
"slug": "presidential-election",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Presidential Election Archives | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 29128,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/presidential-election"
},
"news_18037": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18037",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18037",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Supreme Court of the United States",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Supreme Court of the United States Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 18071,
"slug": "supreme-court-of-the-united-states",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/supreme-court-of-the-united-states"
},
"news_33738": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33738",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33738",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33755,
"slug": "california",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/california"
},
"news_33734": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33734",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33734",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Local Politics",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Local Politics Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33751,
"slug": "local-politics",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/local-politics"
},
"news_33544": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33544",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33544",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Political Breakdown Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33561,
"slug": "political-breakdown",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/political-breakdown"
},
"news_866": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_866",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "866",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "abortion",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "abortion Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 876,
"slug": "abortion",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/abortion"
},
"news_23790": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_23790",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "23790",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "abortion pill",
"slug": "abortion-pill",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "abortion pill | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 23807,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/abortion-pill"
},
"news_32839": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_32839",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "32839",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Election 2024",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Election 2024 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 32856,
"slug": "election-2024",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/election-2024"
},
"news_22235": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_22235",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "22235",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"description": "\u003cimg class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-11638190\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/01/PB-for-FB-links.png\" alt=\"\" />\r\n\r\nJoin hosts\u003cstrong> Scott Shafer\u003c/strong> and \u003cstrong>Marisa Lagos\u003c/strong> as they unpack the week in politics with a California perspective. Featuring interviews with reporters and other insiders involved in the craft of politics—including elected officials, candidates, pollsters, campaign managers, fundraisers, and other political players—\u003ci>Political Breakdown \u003c/i>pulls back the curtain to offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics works today.\r\n\r\n\u003ca href=\"https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087?mt=2\">\u003cimg src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/01/Listen_on_Apple_Podcasts_sRGB_US-e1515635079510.png\" />\u003c/a>",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "Join hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos as they unpack the week in politics with a California perspective. Featuring interviews with reporters and other insiders involved in the craft of politics—including elected officials, candidates, pollsters, campaign managers, fundraisers, and other political players—Political Breakdown pulls back the curtain to offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics works today.",
"title": "Political Breakdown Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 22252,
"slug": "political-breakdown",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/political-breakdown"
},
"news_201": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_201",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "201",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "SCOTUS",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "SCOTUS Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 209,
"slug": "scotus",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/scotus"
},
"news_20402": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20402",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20402",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "FDA",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "FDA Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20419,
"slug": "fda",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/fda"
},
"news_33747": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33747",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33747",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Health",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Health Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33764,
"slug": "health",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/health"
},
"news_30251": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_30251",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "30251",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "abortion access",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "abortion access Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 30268,
"slug": "abortion-access",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/abortion-access"
},
"news_27626": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_27626",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "27626",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "featured-news",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "featured-news Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 27643,
"slug": "featured-news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/featured-news"
},
"news_253": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_253",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "253",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "NPR",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "affiliate",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "KQED is the NPR station for the Bay Area, providing award-winning news, programming, and community engagement.",
"title": "NPR Archives - Get the Latest News and Reports from California | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 7083,
"slug": "npr",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/affiliate/npr"
},
"news_29052": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_29052",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "29052",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "biden administration",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "biden administration Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 29069,
"slug": "biden-administration",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/biden-administration"
},
"news_1089": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1089",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1089",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "social media",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "social media Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1100,
"slug": "social-media",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/social-media"
},
"news_33732": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33732",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33732",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Technology",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Technology Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33749,
"slug": "technology",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/technology"
},
"news_29011": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_29011",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "29011",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "capitol insurrection",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "capitol insurrection Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 29028,
"slug": "capitol-insurrection",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/capitol-insurrection"
},
"news_33745": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33745",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33745",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Criminal Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Criminal Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33762,
"slug": "criminal-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/criminal-justice"
},
"news_6188": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6188",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Law and Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Law and Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6212,
"slug": "law-and-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/law-and-justice"
},
"news_32255": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_32255",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "32255",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Jan. 6",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Jan. 6 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 32272,
"slug": "jan-6",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/jan-6"
},
"news_34167": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34167",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34167",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Criminal Justice",
"slug": "criminal-justice",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Criminal Justice Archives | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34184,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/criminal-justice"
},
"news_32707": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_32707",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "32707",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "audience-news",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "audience-news Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 32724,
"slug": "audience-news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/audience-news"
},
"news_17725": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_17725",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "17725",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "criminal justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "criminal justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 17759,
"slug": "criminal-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/criminal-justice"
},
"news_32909": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_32909",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "32909",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Explaining the Supreme Court",
"slug": "explaining-the-supreme-court",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Explaining the Supreme Court | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 32926,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/explaining-the-supreme-court"
},
"news_26702": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_26702",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "26702",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "KQED guides",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "KQED guides Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 26719,
"slug": "kqed-guides",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/kqed-guides"
},
"news_82": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_82",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "82",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "LGBT",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "LGBT Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 83,
"slug": "lgbt",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/lgbt"
},
"news_17896": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_17896",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "17896",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "LGBT rights",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "LGBT rights Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 17930,
"slug": "lgbt-rights",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/lgbt-rights"
},
"news_20004": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20004",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20004",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "LGBTQ",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "LGBTQ Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20021,
"slug": "lgbtq",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/lgbtq"
},
"news_20003": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20003",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20003",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "LGBTQ community",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "LGBTQ community Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20020,
"slug": "lgbtq-community",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/lgbtq-community"
}
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"eventsReducer": {},
"fssReducer": {},
"tvDailyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvWeeklyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvPrimetimeScheduleReducer": {},
"tvMonthlyScheduleReducer": {},
"userAccountReducer": {
"user": {
"email": null,
"emailStatus": "EMAIL_UNVALIDATED",
"loggedStatus": "LOGGED_OUT",
"loggingChecked": false,
"articles": [],
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"phoneNumber": null,
"fetchingMembership": false,
"membershipError": false,
"memberships": [
{
"id": null,
"startDate": null,
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"familyNumber": null,
"memberNumber": null,
"memberSince": null,
"expirationDate": null,
"pfsEligible": false,
"isSustaining": false,
"membershipLevel": "Prospect",
"membershipStatus": "Non Member",
"lastGiftDate": null,
"renewalDate": null,
"lastDonationAmount": null
}
]
},
"authModal": {
"isOpen": false,
"view": "LANDING_VIEW"
},
"error": null
},
"youthMediaReducer": {},
"checkPleaseReducer": {
"filterData": {
"region": {
"key": "Restaurant Region",
"filters": [
"Any Region"
]
},
"cuisine": {
"key": "Restaurant Cuisine",
"filters": [
"Any Cuisine"
]
}
},
"restaurantDataById": {},
"restaurantIdsSorted": [],
"error": null
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
},
"requestOutcomesReducer": {
"notFound": []
}
}
