KTBB News, Weather, Talk

AUSTIN (AP) — The Trump administration has moved to dismiss a Biden-era lawsuit against Texas over a state law that would allow local police to arrest migrants who enter the country illegally, days after the administration’s decision to dismiss similar lawsuits against Iowa and Oklahoma.

The Justice Department under the Biden administration had sued Texas over concerns that the law, known as Senate Bill 4, was unconstitutional and sought to supersede federal authority.

Signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in 2023, the law would allow law enforcement to arrest migrants for illegal entry and give judges the authority to order them to leave the country. It took effect for just a few hours last year before a federal appeals court put it on hold.

Abbott signed the bill to challenge the federal government after accusing the Biden administration of failing to enact immigration enforcement.

The Trump administration’s decision shadows its refusal to pursue lawsuits against Iowa and Oklahoma, which enacted similar state immigration laws to allow state and local officials to arrest and charge immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

Texas’ law has been considered the most far-encompassing by legal experts and opponents, allowing police anywhere to carry out immigration enforcement.

Senate Bill 4 was one of many efforts by Abbott during the Biden administration to instill more state control over immigration enforcement, which has included busing tens of thousands of migrants to Democratic-controlled cities and installing giant buoys in the Rio Grande to deter migrants from crossing the river from Mexico.

AUSTIN (AP) – The Texas Senate on Tuesday advanced bills that would require public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments and allow districts to provide students with time to pray during school hours.

Senators gave final approval to Senate Bill 11, the school prayer bill, on a 23-7 vote. It now heads to the Texas House for consideration. All Republican senators and three Democrats — Royce West of Dallas, Judith Zaffirini of Laredo and Juan Hinojosa of McAllen — voted for the bill.

Lawmakers also gave initial approval to Senate Bill 10, the Ten Commandments bill, on a 20-10 vote. Both proposals are on Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s list of priority bills this session.

The votes are the latest sign of confidence by conservative Christians that courts will codify their opposition to church-state separation into federal law and spark a revitalization of faith in America.

That much was clear during the debate on the Senate floor Tuesday. Several Democrats criticized both bills, saying they would infringe on the religious freedoms of Texans who are not Christian.

“I think you’re expanding the role of our public education system to include matters that particularly conservatives have previously said is a private matter,” Sen. Nathan Johnson, D-Dallas, said of the school prayer bill. The proposal references the Bible but does not specifically name any other religious texts.

Republican Sens. Mayes Middleton of Galveston and Phil King of Weatherford, who authored the bills, expressed confidence that their legislation would survive in the courts. Religious conservatives see recent court rulings as a sign that legislation putting more religion in public schools will survive legal challenges — though critics of these proposals aren’t so convinced.

“Our schools are not God-free zones. We are a state and nation built on ‘In God We Trust,’” Middleton said in a news release following Tuesday’s vote. “Litigious atheists are no longer going to get to decide for everyone else if students and educators exercise their religious liberties during school hours.”

Middleton also thanked President Donald Trump for “making prayer in public schools a top priority.”

Some Texas faith groups have expressed sharp opposition to both bills. In a letter directed to the Texas Legislature on Tuesday, 166 faith leaders in the state — including those from Sikh, Baptist, Jewish and Buddhist communities — called on lawmakers to reject the school prayer bill and similar legislation.

“We do not need to — and indeed should not — turn public schools into Sunday schools,” the letter wrote.

Similar arguments to those made on the Senate floor Tuesday were also echoed during a Senate committee hearing on March 4, as supporters and some lawmakers argued that the legislation would reverse what they see as decades of national, moral decline.

The vote comes amid a broader push by conservative Christians to infuse more religion into public schools and life. In just the last few years, state Republicans have required classrooms to hang donated signs that say “In God We Trust”; allowed unlicensed religious chaplains to supplant mental health counselors in public schools; and approved new curriculum materials that teach the Bible and other religious texts alongside grade-school lessons.

Last month, Texas senators also approved legislation that would allow public taxpayer money to be redirected to private schools, including parochial schools.

Those efforts have come as the Texas GOP increasingly embraces ideologies that argue America’s founding was God-ordained, and its institutions and laws should thus reflect fundamentalist Christians views. Meanwhile, GOP lawmakers and leaders have continually elevated once-fringe claims that the wall between church and state is a myth meant to obscure America’s true, Christian roots. The argument has been popularized by figures such as David Barton, a Texas pastor and self-styled “ amateur historian ” whose work has been frequently debunked by trained historians, many of them also conservative Christians.

Barton and his son, Timothy Barton, were both invited to testify in favor of the bills on the March 4 hearing. Citing old documents and textbooks that mention the Ten Commandments, they argued that Christianity is the basis for American law and morality, and that their inclusion in classrooms would prevent societal ill such as gun violence.

“It used to be there was a very clear moral standard that we could point to,” Timothy Barton testified, calling it “ironic” that children can be arrested for breaking the law — and thus, he said, the Ten Commandments — but that they should not be able to read them in schools.

Other bill supporters and lawmakers said that there was a moral and spiritual imperative to introduce children to Christianity. Sen. Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound, cited a study that found around 25% of children have been to church.

“It’s absolutely horrific, and something we all need to work on to address,” he said.

Other lawmakers similarly invoked declining Christian participation as a reason to support the bills. “There is eternal life,” said Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels. “And if we don’t expose or introduce our children and others to that, then when they die, they’ll have one birth and two deaths.”

Texas is one of 16 states where lawmakers are pursuing bills to require the Ten Commandments in classrooms — pushes that supporters say have been enabled by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. In 2019’s Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, for instance, the court ruled in favor of a Washington state football coach, Joe Kennedy, who argued that his employer, a public high school, was violating his religious rights by prohibiting him from leading prayers on the field after games.

Kennedy was among those who testified in support of the Texas bills on March 4. He was joined by Matt Krause, a former state House representative and current lawyer at First Liberty Institute, a Texas-based law firm that represented Kennedy and other high-profile plaintiffs in lawsuits that have allowed for more Christianity in public life.

The Kennedy case, Krause testified, was a “ huge paradigm shift ” that allowed for the Ten Commandments to be in classrooms because of its historical significance to American law and history. Asked about the recent court decision that blocked a similar Louisiana law, Krause said he expected the Texas bill would be upheld if it were taken to the ultraconservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and, after that, the U.S. Supreme Court.

The bills have been strongly opposed by religious history scholars and some Christian groups, who argue that they are based on mischaracterizations of early American history and amount to a coercion of religion upon students. Opponents also say that the Ten Commandments bill diminishes a sacred text by stripping it of its religious nature, and that introducing more Christianity into schools will exacerbate tensions and isolate Texas’ growing number of non-Christian students.

“Since 2021, this Legislature has used its authority to impose increasingly divisive policies onto school districts, banning culturally relevant curriculum, forcing libraries to purge undesirable books and putting teachers into the crosshairs of overzealous critics,” said Jaime Puente of the nonprofit Every Texan. The bills “are two giant pieces of red meat that will further harm our schools.”

Christian opponents also testified that the bills would erode church-state separations — a cause that has historically been championed by Baptists and other denominations that faced intense religious persecution in early America.

“All Baptists are called to protect the separation of church and state,” said Jody Harrison, an ordained minister and leader of Baptist Women in Ministry. “Is it really justice to promote one type of Christianity over all schoolchildren?”

Harrison’s comments were strongly opposed by Campbell, the senator. “The Baptist doctrine is Christ-centered,” she said. “Its purpose is not to go around trying to defend this or that. It is to be a disciple and a witness for Christ. That includes the Ten Commandments. That’s prayer in schools. It is not a fight for separation between church and state.”

LUBBOCK (AP) — A Texas lawmaker is laying the groundwork to create a statewide system that connects all first responders and government agencies to the same network. The proposal comes as a possible solution to fix communication issues the agencies have encountered during emergencies and amid a rash of new wildfires in the state.

State Rep. Ken King, R-Canadian, filed House Bill 13 this month. The bill would create The Texas Interoperability Council, which would be tasked with creating a statewide strategic plan for governing the use of emergency equipment and infrastructure. King filed the bill in response to the devastating wildfires last year that engulfed the Panhandle, when more than 1 million acres burned and three people died. King, who lost part of his property in the fires, said he found communication problems as he led the investigative committee last year.

“The first responder community will tell you it takes three meetings in the middle of a disaster before everybody starts moving in the same direction,” King said in a House committee meeting last week. “When that wildfire is moving 60 miles-per-hour, that’s too long.”

Since the wildfires last year, lawmakers seem ready to mitigate wildfire risk. King and state Sen. Kevin Sparks, R-Midland, filed a package of bills that address the problems uncovered last year. Their bills would put more oversight on unregulated power lines, increase funding for rural volunteer fire departments and create a database of readily available firefighting equipment.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick also signaled that wildfire response is one of his priorities for the session. Last week, Sparks filed Senate Bill 34, which now includes his previous bills about wildfire response and creating the Texas Interoperability Council.

In both bills, the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the Texas House of Representatives each would appoint two members to the council, which would be led by the chief of the Texas Division of Emergency Management. The members would serve staggered six-year terms, with the last term ending on Sept. 1, 2031.

TDEM Chief Nim Kidd called the bill the boldest move he has seen in his career. Kidd, who started his career 33 years ago when he joined the volunteer fire department in La Vernia, told lawmakers he often paid for his own equipment and training. He mentioned that when he worked for the San Antonio Fire Department, the police, fire and EMS crews were responding to the same incident on three different radio channels that were all labeled the same.

A network that connects all first responders and state agencies is important, he said, as several agencies respond to the same incident but aren’t able to talk to each other.

“This council will set up an organization structure to bring in over 50 independent operators of radio systems on to the same place,” Kidd said.

This month has been a test of preparedness. As the committee discussed the bills, most of Texas was under wildfire risk. A combination of weather conditions — including hurricane-force winds and drought — hit the Panhandle and South Plains. Gov. Greg Abbott directed the TDEM to ready state emergency response resources.

Jordan Ghawi, a reserve firefighter and a leader for the state emergency medical task force, testified in favor of HB 13. Ghawi told lawmakers he has been deployed to numerous disasters, including the Robb Elementary shooting in Uvalde and hurricanes. He said in every response, the lack of communication and interoperability has been a problem.

“When seconds matter,” Gwahi said, “the ability for our first responders, whether its law enforcement, fire, EMS or state agencies to communicate seamlessly can mean the difference between life and death, or property preservation or property loss.

The bill states the strategic plan must include plans to develop any necessary communication infrastructure and training programs. It must also have a plan to make sure first responders have communication equipment that is interoperable with other equipment, and another plan to ensure any new emergency equipment and infrastructure can be integrated into the existing equipment.

The council would also administer a grant program to assist local governments in getting emergency communication equipment that connects them with other emergency responders and the emergency infrastructure in the state. The grant also would go toward building more emergency communication infrastructure in the state.

Two wildfires erupted in the Panhandle over the weekend. The Windmill Fire in Roberts County was still active Tuesday, but firefighters had it almost completely contained after burning more than 23,000 acres. Several small fires popped up around the state, as well, including the Crabapple Fire outside Fredericksburg. After burning nearly 10,000 acres, firefighters had the fire 90% contained Tuesday night. Firefighters also were battling another blaze late Tuesday night that started in Dallam County, which is near the Texas-Oklahoma border. Texas A&M Forest Service reported it had burned 15,000 acres and was 50% contained. The fire’s forward progression also had stopped.

A Texas 2036 study with state climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon found that the wildfire season — late winter and early spring — is expected to get longer. The study also states that while almost all of the wildfires occur in the western half of the state, other portions of the state will likely be susceptible to wildfire risk.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge blocked enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender people from military service on Tuesday, the latest in a string of legal setbacks for his sweeping agenda.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., ruled that Trump’s order to exclude transgender troops from military service likely violates their constitutional rights. She was the second judge of the day to rule against the administration, and both rulings came within hours of an extraordinary conflict as Trump called for impeaching a third judge who temporarily blocked deportation flights, drawing a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.

Reyes, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, delayed her order until Friday morning to give the administration time to appeal.

“The court knows that this opinion will lead to heated public debate and appeals. In a healthy democracy, both are positive outcomes,” Reyes wrote. “We should all agree, however, that every person who has answered the call to serve deserves our gratitude and respect.”

Army Reserves 2nd Lt. Nicolas Talbott, one of 14 transgender active-duty servicemembers named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said he was holding his breath as he waited to find out if he would be separated from the military next week.

“This is such a sigh of relief,” he said. “This is all I’ve ever wanted to do. This is my dream job, and I finally have it. And I was so terrified that I was about to lose it.”

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, posted about the ruling on social media, writing, “District court judges have now decided they are in command of the Armed Forces…is there no end to this madness?”

The judge issued a preliminary injunction requested by attorneys who also represent others seeking to join the military.

On Jan. 27, Trump signed an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness.

In response to the order, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from military service. Gender dysphoria is the distress that a person feels because their assigned gender and gender identity don’t match. The medical condition has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys contend Trump’s order violates transgender people’s rights to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.

Government lawyers argue that military officials have broad discretion to decide how to assign and deploy servicemembers without judicial interference.

Reyes said she did not take lightly her decision to issue an injunction blocking Trump’s order, noting that “Judicial overreach is no less pernicious than executive overreach.” But, she said, it was also the responsibility of each branch of government to provide checks and balances for the others, and the court “therefore must act to uphold the equal protection rights that the military defends every day.”

Thousands of transgender people serve in the military, but they represent less than 1% of the total number of active-duty service members.

In 2016, a Defense Department policy permitted transgender people to serve openly in the military. During Trump’s first term in the White House, the Republican issued a directive to ban transgender service members. The Supreme Court allowed the ban to take effect. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, scrapped it when he took office.

Hegseth’s Feb. 26 policy says service members or applicants for military service who have “a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”

The plaintiffs who sued to block Trump’s order include an Army Reserves platoon leader from Pennsylvania, an Army major who was awarded a Bronze Star for service in Afghanistan and a Sailor of the Year award winner serving in the Navy.

“The cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed—some risking their lives—to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the military ban seeks to deny them,” Reyes wrote.

Their attorneys, from the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law, said transgender troops “seek nothing more than the opportunity to continue dedicating their lives to defending the Nation.”

“Yet these accomplished servicemembers are now subject to an order that says they must be separated from the military based on a characteristic that has no bearing on their proven ability to do the job,” plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote. “This is a stark and reckless reversal of policy that denigrates honorable transgender servicemembers, disrupts unit cohesion, and weakens our military.”

Government attorneys said the Defense Department has a history of disqualifying people from military service if they have physical or emotional impairments, including mental health conditions.

“In any context other than the one at issue in this case, DoD’s professional military judgment about the risks of allowing individuals with physical or emotional impairments to serve in the military would be virtually unquestionable,” they wrote.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys say Trump’s order fits his administration’s pattern of discriminating against transgender people.

Federal judges in Seattle and Baltimore separately paused Trump’s executive order halting federal support for gender-affirming care for transgender youth under 19. Last month, a judge blocked prison officials from transferring three incarcerated transgender women to men’s facilities and terminating their access to hormone therapy under another Trump order.

Trump also signed orders that set up new rules about how schools can teach about gender and that intend to ban transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports.

“From its first days, this administration has moved to strip protections from transgender people across multiple domains — including housing, social services, schools, sports, healthcare, employment, international travel, and family life,” plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote.

Talbott, 31, of Akron, Ohio, enlisted in March 2024 as an openly trans person after fighting for roughly nine years to join the service. He said his fellow soldiers gave him some good-natured flak for being so much older than other recruits, but never treated him differently for being trans. Talbott anticipates that his colleagues will be “pretty excited that I get to stay.”

“Now I can go back to focusing on what’s really important, which is the mission,” said Talbott, a platoon leader for a military policing unit.