KTBB News, Weather, Talk

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The Connecticut Supreme Court has declined to hear conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ appeal in a defamation case that resulted in a $1.4 billion verdict against him for calling the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting a hoax.

Jones asked the justices to review both the 2022 trial court verdict and a lower appeals court ruling in December that upheld most of the verdict. The Supreme Court turned down his request without explanation Tuesday.

A Connecticut jury and judge awarded relatives of some of the victims of the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, more than $1.4 billion in damages for defamation and emotional distress, over Jones’ repeated claims that the massacre never happened. Jones has since acknowledged that the shooting was “100% real.”

Twenty first graders and six educators were killed. Victims’ relatives testified during the defamation trial that they were traumatized by Jones’ conspiracies and threats from his followers.

In December, the state Appellate Court upheld $965 million of the damages. Two other parents who lost a child in the shooting were awarded nearly $50 million in a similar lawsuit in Texas that Jones is appealing.

Jones raised free speech rights, other constitutional questions and procedural issues in the Connecticut appeal.

“We had a very strong appeal in Connecticut,” he said, expressing frustration on his Infowars show Wednesday.

The Associated Press sent emails seeking comment to Jones’ lawyers Wednesday. A U.S Supreme Court appeal is possible.

Alinor Sterling, a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families, said in a statement that the state Supreme Court’s decision “brings the Connecticut families another step closer to their goal of holding Alex Jones accountable for the harms he caused and will enable them to press forward with collections proceedings against him.”

Jones filed for personal bankruptcy protection in late 2022 after the Connecticut and Texas verdicts. The case remains pending and legal wrangling continues over the proposed liquidation of many of Jones’ and Infowars’ assets.

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A new executive order from President Donald Trump that’s part of his effort to invigorate energy production raises the possibility that his Department of Justice will go to court against state climate change laws aimed at slashing planet-warming greenhouse gas pollution from fossil fuels.

Trump’s order, signed Tuesday, comes as U.S. electricity demand ramps up to meet the growth of artificial intelligence and cloud computing applications, as well as federal efforts to expand high-tech manufacturing. It also coincides with “climate superfund” legislation gaining traction in various states.

Trump has declared a “ national energy emergency ” and ordered his attorney general to take action against states that may be illegally overreaching their authority in how they regulate energy development.

“American energy dominance is threatened when State and local governments seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authorities,” Trump said in the order.

He said the attorney general should focus on state laws targeting climate change, a broad order that unmistakably puts liberal states in the crosshairs of Trump’s Department of Justice.

Michael Gerrard, director of the Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said it would be an “extraordinarily bold move” for the federal government to go to court to try to overturn a state climate law.

Gerrard said the quickest path for Trump’s Department of Justice is to try to join ongoing lawsuits where courts are deciding whether states or cities are exceeding their authority by trying to force the fossil fuel industry to pay for the cost of damages from climate change.
Democrats say they won’t back down

Democratic governors vowed to keep fighting climate change.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom accused Trump of “turning back the clock” on the climate and said his state’s efforts to reduce pollution “won’t be derailed by a glorified press release masquerading as an executive order.”

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, cochairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance, which includes 22 governors, said they “will keep advancing solutions to the climate crisis.”
Climate superfund laws are gaining traction

Vermont and New York are currently fighting challenges in federal courts to climate superfund laws passed last year. Trump suggested the laws “extort” payments from energy companies and “threaten American energy dominance and our economic and national security.”

Both are modeled on the 45-year-old federal superfund law, which taxed petroleum and chemical companies to pay to clean up of sites polluted by toxic waste. In similar fashion, the state climate laws are designed to force major fossil fuel companies to pay into state-based funds based on their past greenhouse gas emissions.

Several other Democratic-controlled states, including New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oregon and California, are considering similar measures.

The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the oil and natural gas industries, applauded Trump’s order that it said would “protect American energy from so-called ‘climate superfunds.’”

“Directing the Department of Justice to address this state overreach will help restore the rule of law and ensure activist-driven campaigns do not stand in the way of ensuring the nation has access to an affordable and reliable energy supply,” it said.
Court battles are already ongoing

The American Petroleum Institute, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, filed the lawsuit against Vermont. The lawsuit against New York was filed by West Virginia, along with several coal, gas and oil interests and 21 other mostly Republican-led states, including Texas, Ohio and Georgia.

Make Polluters Pay, a coalition of consumer and anti-fossil fuel groups, vowed to fight Trump’s order and accused fossil fuel billionaires of convincing Trump to launch an assault on states.

The order, it said, demonstrates the “corporate capture of government” and “weaponizes the Justice Department against states that dare to make polluters pay for climate damage.”

Separately, the Department of Justice could join lawsuits in defense of fossil fuel industries being sued, Gerrard said.

Those lawsuits include ones filed by Honolulu, Hawaii, and dozens of cities and states seeking billions of dollars in damages from things like wildfires, rising sea levels and severe storms.

In the last three months, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to get involved in a couple climate-themed lawsuits.

One was brought by oil and gas companies asking it to block Honolulu’s lawsuit. Another was brought by Alabama and Republican attorneys general in 18 other states aimed at blocking lawsuits against the oil and gas industry from Democratic-led states, including California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

Trump’s order set off talk in state Capitols around the U.S.

That includes Pennsylvania, where the governor is contesting a court challenge to a regulation that would make it the first major fossil fuel-producing state to force power plant owners pay for greenhouse gas emissions.

John Quigley, a former Pennsylvania environmental protection secretary and a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, wondered if the Department of Justice would begin challenging all sorts of state water and air pollution laws.

“This kind of an order knows no bounds,” Quigley said. “It’s hard to say where this could end up.”

___

Associated Press reporter Sophie Austin in Sacramento, California, contributed to this report. Follow Marc Levy on X at: https://x.com/timelywriter

AUSTIN – Texas Supreme Court Justice Jeff Boyd will retire this summer, leaving yet another vacancy for Gov. Greg Abbott to fill.

Boyd was appointed to the court by Gov. Rick Perry in 2012, after serving as the governor’s chief of staff and general counsel. He won reelection in 2014 and 2020, and would be up for reelection in 2026. Boyd said in a statement Wednesday that he would leave the court near the end of the term this summer.

Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock said Boyd is a “model of integrity, impartiality and diligence.”

“His sharp insights and thorough analysis have shaped and strengthened the opinions of the Court, and his abundant good humor around the office have made him a beloved friend and mentor to Justices and staff alike,” Blacklock said. “Justice Boyd leaves the Supreme Court, and the law of our great State, better than he found it.”

Boyd did not share his next steps, except to say it was “time to let another take the helm.”

By retiring before the end of his term, Boyd gifts Abbott the power to decide who will fill that seat on the bench. Abbott, a former Supreme Court justice himself, has appointed six of the nine justices on the bench, including Blacklock and, recently, James Sullivan, both of whom served as his general counsel before ascending.

Abbott’s next appointment will undoubtedly be a Republican attorney or judge cut from the same cloth. Speaking to a gathering of the conservative Federalist Society last week, Abbott said he looks to appoint judges based on “certain core principles,” like originalism and strict constructionism.

“I’m looking for … people who will apply conservative applications of the law, not expanding it, but deciding on the basis of what legislators or Congress or the Constitution itself decides,” he said. “And there’s an abundance of those types of either lawyers or judges already that I have the opportunity to choose from.”

Article originally published by The Texas Tribune. To read the originally published article, click here.

McALLEN, Texas (AP) — Judges in Texas and New York on Wednesday said they would temporarily bar the U.S. government from deporting Venezuelans jailed in parts of those two states while their lawyers challenge the Trump administration’s use of a rarely-invoked law letting presidents imprison and deport noncitizens in times of war.

The judges took actions after civil rights lawyers sought to protect five men identified by the government as belonging to the Tren de Aragua gang, a claim their lawyers dispute. But the judges said some others in their judicial districts similarly situated would also be protected from deportations relying on the Alien Enemies Act.

The judicial moves were the first to occur after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled the administration can resume deportations, but deportees must be afforded some due process before they are flown away, including reasonable time to argue to a judge that they should not be deported.

The rulings did not address the constitutionality of the act. The American Civil Liberties Union is asking the judge in Texas to decide on whether it is lawful to use the Alien Enemies Act.

The United States is not at war with Venezuela, but President Donald Trump’s administration has argued the U.S. is being invaded by members of the Tren de Aragua gang.

U.S. immigration authorities already have deported more than 100 people and sent them to a notorious prison in El Salvador without letting them challenge their removals in court.

Civil liberties lawyers brought lawsuits on behalf of three men detained in a facility in Texas and two held in an Orange County, New York, facility.

Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. signed a temporary restraining order in Texas while Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said at a New York hearing that he planned to sign a temporary order Wednesday to block removals while court challenges proceed.

In Texas, Judge Rodriguez said anyone similarly situated at the El Valle Detention Center will be protected. In New York, Judge Hellerstein said his order will protect Venezuelans in the Southern District of New York, which includes the New York City boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx, along with Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan and Westchester counties.

In Texas, the three plaintiffs include a man who is HIV positive and fears lacking access to medical care if deported.

The men were identified as gang members by physical attributes using the “Alien Enemy Validation Guide,” in which an ICE agent tallies points by relying on tattoos, hand gestures, symbols, logos, graffiti, and manner of dress, according to the ACLU. Experts who study the gang have told the ACLU the method is not reliable.

The lawsuits sought class action status to affect others who are detained and face similar deportation. The ACLU had requested a temporary restraining order to keep their petitioners in the U.S. and for the judge to declare the 18-century Alien Enemies Act, which the Trump administration is invoking, unlawful.

In New York, Hellerstein set a hearing for April 22 to decide whether a temporary restraining order he planned to sign Wednesday would be turned into a preliminary injunction.

At a hearing, Deputy Attorney General Drew Ensign from the Justice Department in Washington opposed a temporary order.

Ensign said he’d been told by immigration authorities that there were “only a handful” of Venezuelans, probably less than 10, detained in New York’s Southern District.

When Hellerstein said 10 individuals would be enough to make up a class, Ensign said: “We disagree.”

The case pertains to two Venezuelan men who also face deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. Civil liberties groups have sued the government on behalf of the two men, one 21 the other 32, who are being held by immigration authorities at a jail about 45 miles (72 kilometers) northwest of New York City.

Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney who argued for a restraining order in New York, said outside court that the ACLU was proceeding district by district at the moment but eventually will likely seek a nationwide injunction so civil rights attorneys don’t have to file cases in 96 different jurisdictions.

The Alien Enemies Act has only been used three times in the past, during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II, when it was used to justify the mass internment of people of Japanese heritage while the U.S. was at war with Japan.

The administration plans to expand its use for members of the Salvadoran gang MS-13, Todd Lyons, acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement director, told reporters Tuesday during Border Security Expo, a trade show in Phoenix.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Oil prices swung wildly on Wednesday, sinking to a four-year low in anticipation of slowing economic growth due to a burgeoning trade war, before jumping 2% after President Donald Trump announced a 90-day pause on most of his tariffs.

U.S. benchmark crude followed U.S. markets higher in the afternoon rising 2%, or $1.20, to $60.79 per barrel after the latest reversal by the Trump administration.

That’s after it declined 4.3% to $56.98 per barrel as late as midday on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices had fallen further earlier in the day to levels not seen since February 2021, the depth of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Energy prices mostly have been in decline since Trump’s inauguration in January, with the cost of a barrel of oil sliding about $20 since the start of the year. At this time last year, a barrel of U.S. crude cost $85. A barrel was going for around $71 at the beginning of April, before tariffs were launched.

Brent crude, the European standard, also climbed into positive territory Wednesday to $63.90 per barrel.

The most recent swoon in energy prices arrived when Trump’s latest round of tariffs kicked in after midnight, including a 104% tax on goods coming from China. The world’s second-largest economy quickly retaliated, with Beijing saying it would raise tariffs on imported U.S. goods to 84% on Thursday.

European Union member states followed suit, issuing retaliatory tariffs on $23 billion in goods. For now, the targeted items are a tiny fraction of the 1.6 trillion euros ($1.8 trillion) in U.S.-EU annual trade.

Rapidly falling oil prices signal pessimism about economic growth and can be a harbinger of a recession as manufacturers cut production, businesses cut travel costs and families rethink vacation plans.

Delta Air Lines. which had anticipated a record year, pulled its financial forecasts for 2025 on Wednesday as the trade war scrambles expectations for business and household spending and depresses bookings across the travel sector.

“With broad economic uncertainty around global trade, growth has largely stalled,” said Delta CEO Ed Bastian.

Shares of major U.S. oil companies fell as well Wednesday.

“We are going into a recession,” Neil Dutta of Renaissance Macro Research wrote in a note to clients. “I don’t think it is especially controversial to say so.”