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_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
},
"news_11954754": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11954754",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11954754",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11954741,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS66659_GettyImages-1364803352-qut-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS66659_GettyImages-1364803352-qut-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS66659_GettyImages-1364803352-qut-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS66659_GettyImages-1364803352-qut.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS66659_GettyImages-1364803352-qut-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 680
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS66659_GettyImages-1364803352-qut-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1024
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS66659_GettyImages-1364803352-qut-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
}
},
"publishDate": 1688144408,
"modified": 1689038250,
"caption": "Supporters of student debt forgiveness demonstrate outside the US Supreme Court on June 30, 2023, in Washington, DC. The US Supreme Court dealt President Joe Biden a significant political setback Tuesday when it overruled his key program to cancel the student debt of millions of Americans. ",
"description": null,
"title": "supreme-court-student-debt",
"credit": "Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": "A group of protesters hold signs reading \"Cancel Student Debt Now\" and \"End Student Debt\"",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11954796": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11954796",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11954796",
"found": true
},
"parent": 0,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/230630-UC-BERKELEY-GETTY-JS-KQED-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/230630-UC-BERKELEY-GETTY-JS-KQED-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/230630-UC-BERKELEY-GETTY-JS-KQED-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/230630-UC-BERKELEY-GETTY-JS-KQED.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/230630-UC-BERKELEY-GETTY-JS-KQED-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 680
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/230630-UC-BERKELEY-GETTY-JS-KQED-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1024
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/230630-UC-BERKELEY-GETTY-JS-KQED-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1280
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/230630-UC-BERKELEY-GETTY-JS-KQED-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
}
},
"publishDate": 1688153411,
"modified": 1688163511,
"caption": "People walk by Wheeler Hall at the UC Berkeley campus on March 14, 2022 in Berkeley.",
"description": null,
"title": "California Universities In A Legal Bind Amid Student Housing Shortage",
"credit": "Justin Sullivan/Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": "People walk by Wheeler Hall on the UC Berkeley campus on March 14, 2022 in Berkeley, California.",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"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
},
"byline_news_11954761": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_11954761",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_11954761",
"name": "\u003ca href=\"https://edsource.org/author/mburke\">Michael Burke\u003c/a>",
"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"
},
"kqednewsstaffandwires": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "237",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "237",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqednewsstaffandwires",
"email": "onlinenewsstaff@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "lowdown",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "food",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff and Wires | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqednewsstaffandwires"
},
"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/2d8d6765f186e64c798cf7f0c8088a41?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "teacupinthebay",
"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/2d8d6765f186e64c798cf7f0c8088a41?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2d8d6765f186e64c798cf7f0c8088a41?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/carlysevern"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_tag_supreme-court": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_932",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "932",
"score": 8.555515
},
"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_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"
},
"news_11954741": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11954741",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11954741",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1688174717000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-court-student-loan-decision-how-affects-you",
"title": "Student Loan Decision: What the Supreme Court Ruling Means for Borrowers",
"publishDate": 1688174717,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Student Loan Decision: What the Supreme Court Ruling Means for Borrowers | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cem>Updated 3:25 p.m. Friday\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court has ruled the Biden administration overstepped its authority in \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11923443/student-loan-forgiveness-whos-eligible-and-how-can-you-apply\">trying to cancel or reduce student loan debt\u003c/a>, effectively killing the $400 billion plan, which would have canceled up to $20,000 in federal student loans for 43 million people. Of those, 20 million would have had their remaining student debt erased completely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Jump to: \u003ca href=\"#supremecourtstudentloans\">What to know about student loan repayments after the Supreme Court’s decision\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>The Court’s decision means, barring an act of Congress, those Americans are \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11953033/student-loan-payments-resume-in-august-heres-what-it-could-cost-you\">on the hook for payments starting in October\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Biden’s response: ‘This fight isn’t over’\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Biden vowed to push ahead with \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/06/30/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-provide-debt-relief-and-support-for-student-loan-borrowers/\">a new plan to provide student loan relief for millions of borrowers\u003c/a> while blaming Republican “hypocrisy” for triggering the decision that wiped out his original plan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Biden said payment requirements for student loans would resume in coming weeks, but that he would work under the authority of the Higher Education Act to begin a new program designed to ease borrowers’ threat of default if they fall behind over the next year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1674873607682441218\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/06/30/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-provide-debt-relief-and-support-for-student-loan-borrowers/\">This approach, as outlined by the White House:\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona on Friday had “initiated a rulemaking process aimed at opening an alternative path to debt relief for as many working and middle-class borrowers as possible,” under the Higher Education Act.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>The Department of Education would finalize “the most affordable repayment plan ever created, ensuring that borrowers will be able to take advantage of this plan this summer — before loan payments are due.” Many borrowers, said Biden, would not have to make monthly payments under this plan, and those that did would save more than $1,000 a year.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>The Department of Education would also set up a 12-month “on-ramp” to repayment, running from October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024, “so that financially vulnerable borrowers who miss monthly payments during this period are not considered delinquent, reported to credit bureaus, placed in default, or referred to debt collection agencies.”\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003ch2>‘Hung out to dry’\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>California Attorney General Rob Bonta — who in January filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in support of President Joe Biden’s plan, along with 21 other attorneys general — called the decision “profoundly disappointing” on Friday morning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>More that 3.5 million Californians, said Bonta, were set to benefit from the “historic” student loan debt forgiveness plan — “and now, they’ve been hung out to dry.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Today, the Republican supermajority on the Supreme Court cruelly denied more than 40 million Americans deeply needed student debt relief,” said Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi in a statement, characterizing the Court’s decision as allowing “a crisis of debt to continue holding back families from buying homes, starting businesses and making ends meet.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Jump to: \u003ca href=\"#supremecourtstudentloans\">When do you have to start repaying your student loans?\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>Calling the Supreme Court a “corrupt, right-wing court,” Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said that having put her two sons through college as a single mother, she knew “firsthand how the burden of student loan debt can impact a person’s life.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>America, wrote Lee, “cannot accept a return to the failed status quo, especially one that continues to disproportionately impact Black and brown communities,” and she urged Biden to “use the tools at his disposal to cancel student debt regardless of SCOTUS’ decision to ignore the letter of the law in this backwards decision.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Officials at California’s higher education institutions also voiced their dismay at the Supreme Court ruling on Friday morning. The University of California also released a statement expressing its disappointment with the ruling, saying that it “would have made a significant impact on the lives of college graduates, particularly for those from low-income backgrounds who are more likely to take on debt to complete their education.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC said it would be arranging webinars with the Department of Education for alumni and students “later this year,” to provide information about their different options for debt repayments.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a statement, California State University Interim Chancellor Jolene Koester said that that CSU officials sympathized with college graduates nationwide “who are pained by the decision reached by the Supreme Court today,” and that the university would “continue to advocate for effective federal measures such as doubling the Pell Grant, which would mean fewer students taking on debt and graduates entering the workforce on solid financial footing.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Borrowers who are \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-payment-pause-end-642276f724b30890669a60ea2c0bbfd5\">worried about their budgets\u003c/a> do have some options. For instance, the government has other loan forgiveness programs that are still in effect, even if Biden’s plan was struck down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here’s what to know about how the decision will affect you:\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"supremecourtstudentloans\">\u003c/a>When will student loan payments resume?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Student loan payments that have been frozen for the last three years because of the pandemic are set to restart in October. That was going to happen no matter what the Supreme Court decided. Interest will start accruing Sept. 1.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>How should I prepare?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Betsy Mayotte, president of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, encourages people not to make any payments until the pause has ended. Instead, she says, put what you would have paid into a savings account.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Then you’ve maintained the habit of making the payment, but (you’re) earning a little bit of interest as well,” she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Mayotte recommends borrowers use the loan-simulator tool at \u003ca href=\"https://studentaid.gov/welcome/?redirectTo=%2F\">StudentAid.gov\u003c/a> or the \u003ca href=\"https://freestudentloanadvice.org/\">one on TISLA’s website\u003c/a> to find a payment plan that best fits their needs. The calculators tell you what your monthly payment would be under each available plan, as well as your long-term costs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Katherine Welbeck of the Student Borrower Protection Center recommends logging on to your account and making sure you know the name of your servicer, your due date and whether you’re enrolled in the best income-driven repayment plan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11923270\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 2560px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11923270\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-scaled.jpg\" alt=\"Students walk through a plaza at UC Berkeley\" width=\"2560\" height=\"1761\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-scaled.jpg 2560w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-800x550.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-1020x702.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-160x110.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-1536x1057.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-2048x1409.jpg 2048w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-1920x1321.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">People walk through Sproul Plaza on the UC Berkeley campus. \u003ccite>(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003ch2>What if I can’t or don’t want to pay?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>If your budget doesn’t allow you to resume payments, it’s important to know how to navigate the possibility of default and delinquency on a student loan. Both can hurt your credit rating, which would make you ineligible for additional aid.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If you’re in a short-term financial bind you may qualify for deferment or forbearance — allowing you to temporarily suspend payment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To determine whether deferment or forbearance are good options for you, you can contact your loan servicer. One thing to note: interest still accrues during deferment or forbearance. Both can also impact potential loan forgiveness options. Depending on the conditions of your deferment or forbearance, it may make sense to continue paying the interest during the payment suspension.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Are there any other programs that can help with student loan debt?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>If you’ve \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/education-student-loans-us-department-of-9184f38730a2d4278495d33b870c3dad\">worked for a government agency or a nonprofit\u003c/a>, \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/business-congress-student-loans-education-cecef88ebeebe2f524022f603f22a83b\">the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program\u003c/a> offers cancellation after 10 years of regular payments, and some income-driven repayment plans cancel the remainder of a borrower’s debt after 20 to 25 years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Borrowers should make sure they’re signed up for \u003ca href=\"https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/repayment/plans/income-driven\">the best possible income-driven repayment plan\u003c/a> to qualify for these programs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Borrowers who have been \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/biden-education-student-loans-miguel-cardona-ccf550c96fa2557433b8b2907f1532e6\">defrauded by for-profit colleges\u003c/a> may also apply for borrower defense and receive relief.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>These programs won’t be affected by the Supreme Court ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>What’s an income-driven repayment plan?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>An income-driven repayment plan sets your monthly student loan payment at an amount that is intended to be affordable based on your income and family size. It takes into account different expenses in your budget, and most federal student loans are eligible for at least one of these types of plans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Generally, your payment amount under an income-driven repayment plan is a percentage of your discretionary income. If your income is low enough, your payment could be as low as $0 per month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If you’d like to repay your federal student loans under an income-driven plan, the first step is to \u003ca href=\"https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/repayment/plans/income-driven\">fill out an application through the Federal Student Aid website\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>How can I reduce costs when paying off my student loans?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>If you sign up for automatic payments, the servicer takes a quarter of a percent off your interest rate, Mayotte says.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Income-driven repayment plans aren’t right for everyone. That said, if you know you will eventually qualify for forgiveness under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, it makes sense to make the lowest monthly payments possible, as the remainder of your debt will be cancelled once that decade of payments is complete.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Reevaluate your monthly student loan repayment during tax season, when you already have all your financial information in front of you. “Can you afford to increase it? Or do you need to decrease it?” Mayotte said.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Break up payments into whatever ways work best for you. You could consider two installments per month, instead of one large monthly sum.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This story contains reporting from The Associated Press’ Adriana Morga and Cora Lewis, and KQED’s Carly Severn. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>The Associated Press receives support from Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "The US Supreme Court has ruled the Biden administration overstepped its authority in trying to cancel or reduce student loan debt. Here's how this decision affects you.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1746607019,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 35,
"wordCount": 1646
},
"headData": {
"title": "Supreme Court Student Loan Ruling: What It Means For You | KQED",
"description": "Understand the Supreme Court's student loan decision. Find out how it affects your repayment options and what steps you can take now.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"socialTitle": "Supreme Court Student Loan Ruling: What It Means For You | KQED",
"socialDescription": "Understand the Supreme Court's student loan decision. Find out how it affects your repayment options and what steps you can take now.",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Student Loan Decision: What the Supreme Court Ruling Means for Borrowers",
"datePublished": "2023-06-30T18:25:17-07:00",
"dateModified": "2025-05-07T01:36:59-07:00",
"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",
"showOnAuthorArchivePages": "No",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11954741/supreme-court-student-loan-decision-how-affects-you",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cem>Updated 3:25 p.m. Friday\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court has ruled the Biden administration overstepped its authority in \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11923443/student-loan-forgiveness-whos-eligible-and-how-can-you-apply\">trying to cancel or reduce student loan debt\u003c/a>, effectively killing the $400 billion plan, which would have canceled up to $20,000 in federal student loans for 43 million people. Of those, 20 million would have had their remaining student debt erased completely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Jump to: \u003ca href=\"#supremecourtstudentloans\">What to know about student loan repayments after the Supreme Court’s decision\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>The Court’s decision means, barring an act of Congress, those Americans are \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11953033/student-loan-payments-resume-in-august-heres-what-it-could-cost-you\">on the hook for payments starting in October\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Biden’s response: ‘This fight isn’t over’\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Biden vowed to push ahead with \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/06/30/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-provide-debt-relief-and-support-for-student-loan-borrowers/\">a new plan to provide student loan relief for millions of borrowers\u003c/a> while blaming Republican “hypocrisy” for triggering the decision that wiped out his original plan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Biden said payment requirements for student loans would resume in coming weeks, but that he would work under the authority of the Higher Education Act to begin a new program designed to ease borrowers’ threat of default if they fall behind over the next year.\u003c/p>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "singleTwitterStatus",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"id": "1674873607682441218"
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/06/30/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-provide-debt-relief-and-support-for-student-loan-borrowers/\">This approach, as outlined by the White House:\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona on Friday had “initiated a rulemaking process aimed at opening an alternative path to debt relief for as many working and middle-class borrowers as possible,” under the Higher Education Act.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>The Department of Education would finalize “the most affordable repayment plan ever created, ensuring that borrowers will be able to take advantage of this plan this summer — before loan payments are due.” Many borrowers, said Biden, would not have to make monthly payments under this plan, and those that did would save more than $1,000 a year.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>The Department of Education would also set up a 12-month “on-ramp” to repayment, running from October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024, “so that financially vulnerable borrowers who miss monthly payments during this period are not considered delinquent, reported to credit bureaus, placed in default, or referred to debt collection agencies.”\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003ch2>‘Hung out to dry’\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>California Attorney General Rob Bonta — who in January filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in support of President Joe Biden’s plan, along with 21 other attorneys general — called the decision “profoundly disappointing” on Friday morning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>More that 3.5 million Californians, said Bonta, were set to benefit from the “historic” student loan debt forgiveness plan — “and now, they’ve been hung out to dry.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Today, the Republican supermajority on the Supreme Court cruelly denied more than 40 million Americans deeply needed student debt relief,” said Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi in a statement, characterizing the Court’s decision as allowing “a crisis of debt to continue holding back families from buying homes, starting businesses and making ends meet.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Jump to: \u003ca href=\"#supremecourtstudentloans\">When do you have to start repaying your student loans?\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>Calling the Supreme Court a “corrupt, right-wing court,” Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said that having put her two sons through college as a single mother, she knew “firsthand how the burden of student loan debt can impact a person’s life.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>America, wrote Lee, “cannot accept a return to the failed status quo, especially one that continues to disproportionately impact Black and brown communities,” and she urged Biden to “use the tools at his disposal to cancel student debt regardless of SCOTUS’ decision to ignore the letter of the law in this backwards decision.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Officials at California’s higher education institutions also voiced their dismay at the Supreme Court ruling on Friday morning. The University of California also released a statement expressing its disappointment with the ruling, saying that it “would have made a significant impact on the lives of college graduates, particularly for those from low-income backgrounds who are more likely to take on debt to complete their education.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC said it would be arranging webinars with the Department of Education for alumni and students “later this year,” to provide information about their different options for debt repayments.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a statement, California State University Interim Chancellor Jolene Koester said that that CSU officials sympathized with college graduates nationwide “who are pained by the decision reached by the Supreme Court today,” and that the university would “continue to advocate for effective federal measures such as doubling the Pell Grant, which would mean fewer students taking on debt and graduates entering the workforce on solid financial footing.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Borrowers who are \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-payment-pause-end-642276f724b30890669a60ea2c0bbfd5\">worried about their budgets\u003c/a> do have some options. For instance, the government has other loan forgiveness programs that are still in effect, even if Biden’s plan was struck down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here’s what to know about how the decision will affect you:\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"supremecourtstudentloans\">\u003c/a>When will student loan payments resume?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Student loan payments that have been frozen for the last three years because of the pandemic are set to restart in October. That was going to happen no matter what the Supreme Court decided. Interest will start accruing Sept. 1.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>How should I prepare?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Betsy Mayotte, president of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, encourages people not to make any payments until the pause has ended. Instead, she says, put what you would have paid into a savings account.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Then you’ve maintained the habit of making the payment, but (you’re) earning a little bit of interest as well,” she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Mayotte recommends borrowers use the loan-simulator tool at \u003ca href=\"https://studentaid.gov/welcome/?redirectTo=%2F\">StudentAid.gov\u003c/a> or the \u003ca href=\"https://freestudentloanadvice.org/\">one on TISLA’s website\u003c/a> to find a payment plan that best fits their needs. The calculators tell you what your monthly payment would be under each available plan, as well as your long-term costs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Katherine Welbeck of the Student Borrower Protection Center recommends logging on to your account and making sure you know the name of your servicer, your due date and whether you’re enrolled in the best income-driven repayment plan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11923270\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 2560px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11923270\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-scaled.jpg\" alt=\"Students walk through a plaza at UC Berkeley\" width=\"2560\" height=\"1761\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-scaled.jpg 2560w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-800x550.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-1020x702.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-160x110.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-1536x1057.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-2048x1409.jpg 2048w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/GettyImages-1385201995-1920x1321.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">People walk through Sproul Plaza on the UC Berkeley campus. \u003ccite>(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003ch2>What if I can’t or don’t want to pay?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>If your budget doesn’t allow you to resume payments, it’s important to know how to navigate the possibility of default and delinquency on a student loan. Both can hurt your credit rating, which would make you ineligible for additional aid.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If you’re in a short-term financial bind you may qualify for deferment or forbearance — allowing you to temporarily suspend payment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To determine whether deferment or forbearance are good options for you, you can contact your loan servicer. One thing to note: interest still accrues during deferment or forbearance. Both can also impact potential loan forgiveness options. Depending on the conditions of your deferment or forbearance, it may make sense to continue paying the interest during the payment suspension.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Are there any other programs that can help with student loan debt?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>If you’ve \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/education-student-loans-us-department-of-9184f38730a2d4278495d33b870c3dad\">worked for a government agency or a nonprofit\u003c/a>, \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/business-congress-student-loans-education-cecef88ebeebe2f524022f603f22a83b\">the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program\u003c/a> offers cancellation after 10 years of regular payments, and some income-driven repayment plans cancel the remainder of a borrower’s debt after 20 to 25 years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Borrowers should make sure they’re signed up for \u003ca href=\"https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/repayment/plans/income-driven\">the best possible income-driven repayment plan\u003c/a> to qualify for these programs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Borrowers who have been \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/biden-education-student-loans-miguel-cardona-ccf550c96fa2557433b8b2907f1532e6\">defrauded by for-profit colleges\u003c/a> may also apply for borrower defense and receive relief.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>These programs won’t be affected by the Supreme Court ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>What’s an income-driven repayment plan?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>An income-driven repayment plan sets your monthly student loan payment at an amount that is intended to be affordable based on your income and family size. It takes into account different expenses in your budget, and most federal student loans are eligible for at least one of these types of plans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Generally, your payment amount under an income-driven repayment plan is a percentage of your discretionary income. If your income is low enough, your payment could be as low as $0 per month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If you’d like to repay your federal student loans under an income-driven plan, the first step is to \u003ca href=\"https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/repayment/plans/income-driven\">fill out an application through the Federal Student Aid website\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>How can I reduce costs when paying off my student loans?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>If you sign up for automatic payments, the servicer takes a quarter of a percent off your interest rate, Mayotte says.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Income-driven repayment plans aren’t right for everyone. That said, if you know you will eventually qualify for forgiveness under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, it makes sense to make the lowest monthly payments possible, as the remainder of your debt will be cancelled once that decade of payments is complete.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Reevaluate your monthly student loan repayment during tax season, when you already have all your financial information in front of you. “Can you afford to increase it? Or do you need to decrease it?” Mayotte said.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Break up payments into whatever ways work best for you. You could consider two installments per month, instead of one large monthly sum.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This story contains reporting from The Associated Press’ Adriana Morga and Cora Lewis, and KQED’s Carly Severn. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>The Associated Press receives support from Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism.\u003c/em>\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/11954741/supreme-court-student-loan-decision-how-affects-you",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"categories": [
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_32707",
"news_201",
"news_25523",
"news_932"
],
"featImg": "news_11954754",
"label": "news"
},
"news_11954761": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11954761",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11954761",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1688164606000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "uc-offers-its-admissions-reviews-strategy-to-encourage-us-campus-diversity",
"title": "UC Offers Its Admissions' Reviews Strategy to Encourage US Campus Diversity",
"publishDate": 1688164606,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "UC Offers Its Admissions’ Reviews Strategy to Encourage US Campus Diversity | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\u003cp>With the U.S. Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf\">ruling Thursday (PDF)\u003c/a> that\u003ca href=\"https://edsource.org/2023/supreme-court-rules-against-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions/693314\"> race-conscious admissions are unlawful\u003c/a>, colleges and universities across the country hoping to enroll diverse student bodies will need to turn to different strategies to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For ideas, those institutions could look to California, where public colleges haven’t considered race in admissions since voters in 1996 approved a ballot measure banning it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The University of California has since turned to holistic review practices to make admissions decisions in an effort to maintain a diverse student body.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Rather than only looking at a student’s grades or test scores, UC campuses have considered a range of factors, including the location of an applicant’s school, an applicant’s socioeconomic status and an applicant’s achievements relative to the opportunities available at their high school. UC over the years has also ramped up its outreach to lower-income students and students enrolled at underserved high schools.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Those efforts have been far from perfect, however.[pullquote size=\"medium\" align=\"right\" citation=\"Michael Drake, UC's systemwide president\"]‘We stand ready to share our expertise and lessons learned as we collaborate with our partners to achieve a higher education landscape that reflects the rich diversity of our nation.’[/pullquote]In fact, \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1199/232355/20220801134931730_20-1199%20bsac%20University%20of%20California.pdf\">UC officials acknowledged in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court last fall (PDF)\u003c/a> that it has failed to enroll a sufficiently diverse student body or one that is representative of the state’s demographics. But in the absence of being able to consider race, experts and college officials say UC’s strategies may be at least somewhat helpful in promoting racial diversity on campuses.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Without being able to consider race in admissions, universities will be forced to “work much harder to identify and address the root causes of societal inequities that hinder diverse students in pursuing and achieving a higher education,” said Michael Drake, UC’s systemwide president, in a statement Thursday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For colleges that will now for the first time enter a world without race-conscious admissions, Drake added that UC is prepared to help.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We stand ready to share our expertise and lessons learned as we collaborate with our partners to achieve a higher education landscape that reflects the rich diversity of our nation,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Among the institutions that may have something to learn from UC are the dozens of private colleges and universities in California, which, unlike California’s public colleges, have previously been free to consider race in admissions but will now be outlawed from doing so. Many of them are likely to seek UC’s guidance when it comes to developing new student outreach programs, refining their own holistic review processes and potentially investing more in admission staff, said Kristen Soares, president of the \u003ca href=\"https://aiccu.edu/\">Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. \u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We’ll have a lot to learn from them,” Soares said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11954788\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11954788\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS31207_GettyImages-959667464-qut.jpg\" alt=\"A gigantic, prestigious brick and tan building is pictured on USC's campus. It's the Engemann Student Health Center. Trees surround the front of the building as it hovers over students seen down below entering its glass doors. It's a sunny day with blue skies and puffy clouds.\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1280\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS31207_GettyImages-959667464-qut.jpg 1920w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS31207_GettyImages-959667464-qut-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS31207_GettyImages-959667464-qut-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS31207_GettyImages-959667464-qut-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS31207_GettyImages-959667464-qut-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The entrance to the Engemann Student Health Center on the campus of the University of Southern California is seen in Los Angeles on May 17, 2018. \u003ccite>(Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>About 27 years after Proposition 209 banned the consideration of race in admissions, the racial makeup of UC’s student body doesn’t come close to matching the diversity of the state. For example, in fall 2022, UC’s incoming first-year students were 26.7% Latino. The state’s high school seniors in 2022 \u003ca href=\"https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/\">were 55.7% Latino.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the university maintains that holistic review, introduced in 2001, has allowed the system to make some gains. In the two decades from fall 2002 to fall 2022, the percentage of undergraduate Latino students enrolled across UC has increased from 13% to 25%, though some of that is likely also due to demographic changes in the state, as Latinos now make up a larger share of high school seniors.[aside postID=news_11954612 hero='https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/AP23180684729490-1020x680.jpg']The share of Black students has also increased from 3% to 4.4%, while the percentage of white students has decreased from 36.5% to 20.7%. White students made up 21.2% of high school seniors last year and Black students accounted for 4.9%.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Holistic review can be a powerful tool to ensure that students are really getting a fair shot at being reviewed in a much more equitable fashion,” said Michele Siqueiros, president of the Campaign for College Opportunity, an organization based in Los Angeles that advocates for more equitable access to college.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion issued Thursday, Chief Justice John Roberts said universities can consider factors consistent with holistic review, such as a student’s socioeconomic status, status as a first-generation college student or an essay describing how their race or ethnicity has impacted their life experiences.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One concern, however, is whether students of color will even apply to competitive universities now that affirmative action has been banned in admissions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I worry about how this might change the behavior of students and that students will be discouraged from applying to selective institutions,” said Maricela Martinez, the vice president of enrollment management at Occidental College, a selective liberal arts college in northeast Los Angeles.[pullquote size=\"medium\" align=\"right\" citation=\"Michele Siqueiros, president, Campaign for College Opportunity\"]‘I think there’s a lot that UC has learned, and can teach others across the country about admissions and how to do it in a much more thoughtful fashion.’[/pullquote]In UC’s case, the system has tried to deal with that by increasing its outreach programs aimed at students from lower-income families, such as its \u003ca href=\"https://eaop.universityofcalifornia.edu/about.html\">Early Academic Outreach program\u003c/a> aimed at students from underserved high schools. UC has a total of 13 of those types of programs, and they collectively reach more than 200,000 students, the university told the Supreme Court in the brief it filed last year. UC said those programs haven’t been particularly effective in reaching Black or Native American students, but that Latino students have benefited.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC in 2020 also eliminated standardized test scores from admissions. That was followed by a big increase in applications to the university, including among Black and Latino students. Experts attributed that partly to the elimination of those tests, saying students likely felt more optimistic about their chances of being admitted.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I think there’s a lot that UC has learned, and can teach others across the country about admissions and how to do it in a much more thoughtful fashion,” Siqueiros said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://edsource.org/2023/university-of-california-looks-to-share-expertise-after-decades-without-affirmative-action/693374\">\u003cem>This story originally appeared in EdSource.\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "As the Supreme Court ends affirmative action, US colleges could turn to California's methods to maintain student diversity after voters ousted admissions based on race in 1996.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1721145652,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 21,
"wordCount": 1138
},
"headData": {
"title": "UC Offers Its Admissions' Reviews Strategy to Encourage US Campus Diversity | KQED",
"description": "As the Supreme Court ends affirmative action, US colleges could turn to California's methods to maintain student diversity after voters ousted admissions based on race in 1996.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "UC Offers Its Admissions' Reviews Strategy to Encourage US Campus Diversity",
"datePublished": "2023-06-30T15:36:46-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-07-16T09:00:52-07:00",
"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"
]
}
}
},
"source": "EDSOURCE",
"sourceUrl": "https://edsource.org/",
"sticky": false,
"nprByline": "\u003ca href=\"https://edsource.org/author/mburke\">Michael Burke\u003c/a>",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"showOnAuthorArchivePages": "No",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11954761/uc-offers-its-admissions-reviews-strategy-to-encourage-us-campus-diversity",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>With the U.S. Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf\">ruling Thursday (PDF)\u003c/a> that\u003ca href=\"https://edsource.org/2023/supreme-court-rules-against-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions/693314\"> race-conscious admissions are unlawful\u003c/a>, colleges and universities across the country hoping to enroll diverse student bodies will need to turn to different strategies to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For ideas, those institutions could look to California, where public colleges haven’t considered race in admissions since voters in 1996 approved a ballot measure banning it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The University of California has since turned to holistic review practices to make admissions decisions in an effort to maintain a diverse student body.\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>Rather than only looking at a student’s grades or test scores, UC campuses have considered a range of factors, including the location of an applicant’s school, an applicant’s socioeconomic status and an applicant’s achievements relative to the opportunities available at their high school. UC over the years has also ramped up its outreach to lower-income students and students enrolled at underserved high schools.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Those efforts have been far from perfect, however.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "‘We stand ready to share our expertise and lessons learned as we collaborate with our partners to achieve a higher education landscape that reflects the rich diversity of our nation.’",
"name": "pullquote",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"size": "medium",
"align": "right",
"citation": "Michael Drake, UC's systemwide president",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>In fact, \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1199/232355/20220801134931730_20-1199%20bsac%20University%20of%20California.pdf\">UC officials acknowledged in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court last fall (PDF)\u003c/a> that it has failed to enroll a sufficiently diverse student body or one that is representative of the state’s demographics. But in the absence of being able to consider race, experts and college officials say UC’s strategies may be at least somewhat helpful in promoting racial diversity on campuses.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Without being able to consider race in admissions, universities will be forced to “work much harder to identify and address the root causes of societal inequities that hinder diverse students in pursuing and achieving a higher education,” said Michael Drake, UC’s systemwide president, in a statement Thursday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For colleges that will now for the first time enter a world without race-conscious admissions, Drake added that UC is prepared to help.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We stand ready to share our expertise and lessons learned as we collaborate with our partners to achieve a higher education landscape that reflects the rich diversity of our nation,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Among the institutions that may have something to learn from UC are the dozens of private colleges and universities in California, which, unlike California’s public colleges, have previously been free to consider race in admissions but will now be outlawed from doing so. Many of them are likely to seek UC’s guidance when it comes to developing new student outreach programs, refining their own holistic review processes and potentially investing more in admission staff, said Kristen Soares, president of the \u003ca href=\"https://aiccu.edu/\">Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. \u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We’ll have a lot to learn from them,” Soares said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11954788\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11954788\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS31207_GettyImages-959667464-qut.jpg\" alt=\"A gigantic, prestigious brick and tan building is pictured on USC's campus. It's the Engemann Student Health Center. Trees surround the front of the building as it hovers over students seen down below entering its glass doors. It's a sunny day with blue skies and puffy clouds.\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1280\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS31207_GettyImages-959667464-qut.jpg 1920w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS31207_GettyImages-959667464-qut-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS31207_GettyImages-959667464-qut-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS31207_GettyImages-959667464-qut-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/RS31207_GettyImages-959667464-qut-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The entrance to the Engemann Student Health Center on the campus of the University of Southern California is seen in Los Angeles on May 17, 2018. \u003ccite>(Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>About 27 years after Proposition 209 banned the consideration of race in admissions, the racial makeup of UC’s student body doesn’t come close to matching the diversity of the state. For example, in fall 2022, UC’s incoming first-year students were 26.7% Latino. The state’s high school seniors in 2022 \u003ca href=\"https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/\">were 55.7% Latino.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the university maintains that holistic review, introduced in 2001, has allowed the system to make some gains. In the two decades from fall 2002 to fall 2022, the percentage of undergraduate Latino students enrolled across UC has increased from 13% to 25%, though some of that is likely also due to demographic changes in the state, as Latinos now make up a larger share of high school seniors.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_11954612",
"hero": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/AP23180684729490-1020x680.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>The share of Black students has also increased from 3% to 4.4%, while the percentage of white students has decreased from 36.5% to 20.7%. White students made up 21.2% of high school seniors last year and Black students accounted for 4.9%.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Holistic review can be a powerful tool to ensure that students are really getting a fair shot at being reviewed in a much more equitable fashion,” said Michele Siqueiros, president of the Campaign for College Opportunity, an organization based in Los Angeles that advocates for more equitable access to college.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion issued Thursday, Chief Justice John Roberts said universities can consider factors consistent with holistic review, such as a student’s socioeconomic status, status as a first-generation college student or an essay describing how their race or ethnicity has impacted their life experiences.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One concern, however, is whether students of color will even apply to competitive universities now that affirmative action has been banned in admissions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I worry about how this might change the behavior of students and that students will be discouraged from applying to selective institutions,” said Maricela Martinez, the vice president of enrollment management at Occidental College, a selective liberal arts college in northeast Los Angeles.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "‘I think there’s a lot that UC has learned, and can teach others across the country about admissions and how to do it in a much more thoughtful fashion.’",
"name": "pullquote",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"size": "medium",
"align": "right",
"citation": "Michele Siqueiros, president, Campaign for College Opportunity",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>In UC’s case, the system has tried to deal with that by increasing its outreach programs aimed at students from lower-income families, such as its \u003ca href=\"https://eaop.universityofcalifornia.edu/about.html\">Early Academic Outreach program\u003c/a> aimed at students from underserved high schools. UC has a total of 13 of those types of programs, and they collectively reach more than 200,000 students, the university told the Supreme Court in the brief it filed last year. UC said those programs haven’t been particularly effective in reaching Black or Native American students, but that Latino students have benefited.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC in 2020 also eliminated standardized test scores from admissions. That was followed by a big increase in applications to the university, including among Black and Latino students. Experts attributed that partly to the elimination of those tests, saying students likely felt more optimistic about their chances of being admitted.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I think there’s a lot that UC has learned, and can teach others across the country about admissions and how to do it in a much more thoughtful fashion,” Siqueiros said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://edsource.org/2023/university-of-california-looks-to-share-expertise-after-decades-without-affirmative-action/693374\">\u003cem>This story originally appeared in EdSource.\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\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/11954761/uc-offers-its-admissions-reviews-strategy-to-encourage-us-campus-diversity",
"authors": [
"byline_news_11954761"
],
"categories": [
"news_18540",
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_1895",
"news_22809",
"news_17687",
"news_20013",
"news_21405",
"news_27626",
"news_932",
"news_30280",
"news_206"
],
"featImg": "news_11954796",
"label": "source_news_11954761"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"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": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?tag=supreme-court": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 12,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 90,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_11992777",
"news_11981042",
"news_11980822",
"news_11980696",
"news_11979853",
"news_11977992",
"news_11977488",
"news_11975149",
"news_11958412",
"news_11955680",
"news_11954741",
"news_11954761"
],
"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_11975149": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11975149",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Political Breakdown",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_11954761": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11954761",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "EDSOURCE",
"link": "https://edsource.org/",
"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_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_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_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_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_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_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_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"
},
"news_25523": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_25523",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "25523",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "student loans",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "student loans Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 25540,
"slug": "student-loans",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/student-loans"
},
"news_18540": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18540",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18540",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Education",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Education Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2595,
"slug": "education",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/education"
},
"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_22809": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_22809",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "22809",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "college admissions",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "college admissions Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 22826,
"slug": "college-admissions",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/college-admissions"
},
"news_17687": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_17687",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "17687",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "diversity",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "diversity Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 17721,
"slug": "diversity",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/diversity"
},
"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_21405": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_21405",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "21405",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "equity",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "equity Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 21422,
"slug": "equity",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/equity"
},
"news_30280": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_30280",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "30280",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "uc admissions",
"slug": "uc-admissions",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "uc admissions | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 30297,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/uc-admissions"
},
"news_206": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_206",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "206",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "University of California",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "University of California Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 214,
"slug": "university-of-california",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/university-of-california"
}
},
"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
}
}
