Fox News RSS Feed

The Trump administration is expected to decide by late December whether to strip the American Bar Association’s (ABA) law school accrediting arm of federal recognition, a move that would not automatically end the ABA’s accreditation of law schools or change state bar-admission rules but could accelerate states’ efforts to approve alternative paths to becoming a lawyer.

Two legal education experts told Fox News Digital that while most law students would be unlikely to lose access to federal loans if the ABA's accrediting arm loses recognition, the decision could accelerate a broader shift away from the organization's longstanding dominance over legal education, with states increasingly exploring alternative accreditation pathways that could change how law schools operate and who qualifies to practice law.

"I think the biggest thing is, everyone should know that the federal recognition of the ABA is just the first step," Adam Biggs, general counsel of the University of Austin, told Fox News Digital. "If they get knocked off their perch, that's going to supercharge the conversations of these state supreme courts to create alternative pathways that are not just the ABA."

The looming decision follows a September vote by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), the federal panel that advises the Education Department on accreditation matters, which remained deadlocked over whether to recommend renewing the ABA's federal accreditation recognition. Education Department staff have already recommended denying renewal, and now the decision rests in the hands of Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent to rule on whether the ABA's accrediting arm can retain its federally recognized status, which it has held since 1952.

AI BACKLASH REACHES MAJOR UNIVERSITY WITH BOLD BAN ON LAPTOPS AND PHONES FOR LAW STUDENTS

The ABA has long served as the primary gatekeeper for legal education in the United States, with most states requiring graduates to have attended an ABA-accredited law school to qualify for the bar exam. Although losing federal recognition would not automatically end that arrangement, critics argue it could accelerate efforts already underway in some states to recognize alternative law school approval systems, potentially allowing institutions to experiment with cheaper, shorter programs outside the ABA’s traditional accreditation model.

One such alternative is taking shape in Texas, where Biggs is helping develop a new law school at the University of Austin (UATX) that would operate without ABA accreditation. The university is considering a two-year law program or a model that combines undergraduate and legal studies. It plans to make tuition free and avoid federal funding altogether. The proposed school could also depart from traditional law school staffing models by relying more heavily on practicing attorneys and federal judges as adjunct instructors, rather than maintaining the extensive full-time faculty structure that Biggs says ABA accreditation standards require and that can pose a high bar for institutions.

Biggs argued that the ABA's longstanding influence over legal education has discouraged such experimentation by imposing what he described as a "one size fits all elitist model of education," which he said drives up costs and limits schools' ability to offer alternative approaches to training future lawyers.

DUKE LAW'S ALLEGED RACE-BASED ADMISSIONS ACCUSED OF DEFYING SUPREME COURT RULING: DOJ

"Right now, the model they force makes it impossible to cut overhead, and it's going to be an expensive product," Biggs said, criticizing the ABA's accreditation requirements. "That makes the decision for you. Because you need to live in a big city to go work at a firm to pay off your massive amount of debt."

Biggs added that reducing the cost of legal education could help address attorney shortages in rural and underserved communities, where graduates carrying substantial student debt may struggle to pursue lower-paying legal work. Allowing law schools to operate with less overhead, he said, could give new attorneys greater flexibility to serve those communities and potentially make legal services more affordable.

The ABA faculty requirements criticized by Biggs are also facing scrutiny from the Justice Department, which has threatened an antitrust investigation over restrictions on adjunct professors teaching core law school courses. In an Oct. 7 letter, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward gave the ABA 15 days to revise or justify its rules, arguing that the requirements restrict competition and contribute to higher tuition costs, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The emergence of alternative accreditation pathways could offer aspiring lawyers new opportunities, but also introduce complications for graduates hoping to practice in states other than where they attended law school.

While the federal government determines which accrediting agencies it recognizes for federal purposes, state supreme courts generally set their own bar-admission requirements. Many states currently require graduation from an ABA-accredited law school, a requirement that would not automatically disappear if the ABA loses its federal recognition.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACCUSES PRESTIGIOUS LAW SCHOOL OF FAVORING BLACK APPLICANTS OVER WHITE, ASIAN PEERS

That means graduates of schools approved through alternative state-level processes, such as the one UATX hopes to pursue in Texas, could qualify for the bar in their home state but face additional hurdles elsewhere. Biggs predicted that as more states adopt alternative pathways, others could face pressure to reconsider their requirements.

"Eventually there's gonna be a very large group of states that are not ABA or nothing," Biggs said, predicting that states such as New York and Illinois would eventually have to confront the issue. "They're gonna have to come to the table and try to figure out how portability is gonna work."

Several states have already begun loosening the ABA's longstanding hold over legal education. In January, Texas became the first state to end its exclusive reliance on ABA accreditation for bar eligibility, with the state Supreme Court assuming authority to approve qualifying law schools. Florida followed nine days later, adopting its own approach to recognizing law schools outside the traditional ABA system.

The movement has since extended to other states. Ohio's Supreme Court proposed changes in May to establish a state-run law school approval process, while courts in Tennessee, Alabama and Washington have also taken steps toward reducing their reliance on the ABA, as Fox News Digital previously reported.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TUITION PERKS PUT 4 STATES IN TRUMP DOJ CROSSHAIRS

The potential consequences for federal student loans, meanwhile, may be far more limited. Biggs explained that most law schools are affiliated with larger universities that maintain their own institutional accreditation, allowing students to access federal aid without relying exclusively on the ABA's recognition.

"So unless you are a freestanding law school that only relies on the ABA, your students are gonna be fine," Biggs said.

Sarah Parshall Perry, attorney and vice president of nonprofit Defending Education, similarly told Fox News Digital that the more immediate federal-aid concerns would fall on standalone law schools that rely on the ABA's federal recognition rather than a parent university's institutional accreditation. Perry estimated that roughly 15 standalone law schools could potentially face federal funding complications if the ABA loses its recognition.

Beyond the immediate financial implications, Perry argued that loosening the ABA's grip on legal education could bring more fundamental changes to what law schools teach and how they prepare students for the profession.

TRUMP'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES NEW YORK, OTHER BLUE STATES OVER TUITION FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

"These law students are actually going to get a better education," Perry argued. "Because we get the ABA meddling away from curricular inclusions, and we get them away from race mandates in admissions and in hiring and promotions, we get back to ground zero on making excellent lawyers."

"I don't care what color my attorney is if I get in a car crash. I am very concerned that he recognizes principles of contract law and insurance liability. That's what matters most," she added.

The ABA's accrediting council has already moved to roll back some of its DEI requirements amid concern the federal government could strip its accrediting status. In September, the council voted 10-6 to repeal Standard 206, which had required law schools to demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion among students, faculty and staff.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

Education Department officials previously told Fox News Digital that staff had recommended denying the organization's renewed recognition after finding it out of compliance with more than 26 federal recognition criteria, including concerns about the accrediting council's independence from the broader ABA membership and advocacy activities.

The ABA has disputed the Department's findings and defended the independence of its accrediting council. Even if the administration ultimately revokes federal recognition, the organization could continue accrediting law schools, leaving states to decide whether to maintain their longstanding reliance on ABA approval or embrace alternative pathways as some have already started doing.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/M9s2lSC
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

PORTLAND, Maine — Americans who were asked for their opinions of socialism by Fox News Digital offered sharply different interpretations of the ideology, with some embracing its promises of economic equality while others expressed strong reservations about government control over the means of production.

Fox News Digital took to the streets of Maine's largest city, a progressive bastion, to talk to residents about their definitions of socialism and how far they would be willing to go to embrace its ideals.

The topic of socialism has featured prominently in campaign coverage during this midterm election cycle, as candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) scored high-profile victories over more centrist rivals in a slew of Democratic primaries this year. DSA's outsized influence has been a driving force in the ballot box battle for the Democratic Party's ideological future.

LIBERAL HOTSPOT RESIDENTS CAN'T AGREE ON WHAT SOCIALISM MEANS

A new Fox News national poll indicates 32% of voters have a favorable view of socialism, with 64% seeing it in an unfavorable way. But the favorable rating matches an all-time high, first reached five years ago, since Fox News first began asking the question in 2019. And a September Gallup poll found that 43% of Americans had a positive image of socialism, the highest level since the polling organization began tracking the question in 2010.

Lewis, a retired Navy veteran, said socialism was a good thing because it "looks out for people's needs.... and it's not communism."

Socialism and communism both emphasize collective ownership of the means of production, such as factories, businesses and major industries. But socialism encompasses a range of approaches, including those that allow private enterprise, while communism traditionally envisions the abolition of private ownership of productive assets and, ultimately, a classless society.

CHECK OUT THE LATEST FOX NEWS NATIONAL POLL

Lewis turned skeptical when Fox News Digital asked whether he would personally surrender private property to government or collective control.

"I guess. I hadn't really thought about socialism that way. I think about taking care of the needs of people, you know, things like... national health care, things like that," he answered. "I don't like government taking things away from you."

Nolan, who recently moved to Portland, told Fox News Digital "there's a lot of wealth imbalance in America right now, and we could benefit from some sort of leveling system."

He said socialism exists to help "people who aren't as, you know, benefiting in society."

Nolan added that "business owners should have their autonomy" and that "people deserve to earn their money."

"But there are a lot of really high-end... corporations that benefit so much... that really don't need that much wealth... there's so much exorbitant wealth at the top end that a lot of that could trickle down to people who are disadvantaged and don't have homes," Nolan stated.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

Nola, another resident passing through Portland's Monument Square, said socialism's "a good thing. It means equity."

Asked about the takeover of businesses and means of production under socialism, Nola said she still "100%" supported socialism.

"I'm the daughter of a small business owner. I've seen how tough it is to run a small business in this country and how easy it is for corporations to just do whatever they want," she explained. "So if we gave actually back to small businesses and the government helped them out... and so much of the market that's privatized actually became public, I think... with how big the U.S. has gotten, it's only a good thing."

Ted disagreed.

"Socialism overall, I think it's a horrible idea," he emphasized. "If we can learn from history, anything from history, we see that it's gonna really give way too much power to the government institution. It's gonna... make things that are harmful overall for everyone... it's like it's dictatorship."

Ted argued that "socialism just impoverishes. Capitalism, the free market economy is a good thing."

He added that while "some people are very wealthy and very greedy," that overall capitalism "creates other wealth for other people."

The new Fox News poll found that 51% of voters had a favorable view of capitalism, compared with 32% who viewed socialism favorably. Another 46% had an unfavorable view of capitalism.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/zC1SX5l
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

Canadian officials confirmed fatalities and injuries following a serious incident that sparked a major fire at one of the country's busiest military bases Saturday.

Canadian Defense Minister David McGuinty confirmed the incident at Canadian Forces Base Wainwright in Alberta, a major Army training installation.

He did not immediately specify how many people were killed or injured.

"I’m saddened to share that there have been both fatalities and injuries as a result of an incident on the base," McGuinty told reporters.

AT LEAST 1 KILLED, 34 FIREFIGHTERS AND EMS WORKERS INJURED IN 'MAJOR' STATEN ISLAND SHIPYARD EXPLOSION: FDNY

McGuinty said the fire was still burning Saturday evening.

"I cannot recall an incident like this in recent memory," he added.

The municipality of Wainwright said the fire had spread beyond the military base's perimeter into the surrounding area.

FAST-MOVING SANDY FIRE BURNS HUNDREDS OF ACRES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, FORCING EVACUATIONS IN SIMI VALLEY AREA

However, local officials said no evacuation orders had been issued.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney addressed the incident in a post on X.

"A serious incident creating a major fire has occurred at CFB Wainwright, in Alberta," Carney wrote. "Our thoughts are with all the brave women and men affected."

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith described the incident in a post on X as a "significant and tragic fire" that affected military personnel at the base.

The Canadian Armed Forces, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and local emergency personnel were responding to the incident, according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

AMTRAK FIRE NEAR PENN STATION TRIGGERS MAJOR NYC COMMUTER DISRUPTIONS, NJ TRANSIT AND LIRR CANCELLATIONS

"The Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence, partners across the federal government, including public safety, are working with the government of Alberta and municipal governments to mobilize all necessary support," McGuinty said.

Canadian Forces Base Wainwright is located roughly 130 miles east of Edmonton and had approximately 1,310 military and civilian personnel stationed there in 2021, according to census figures cited by Reuters.

The nearby town of Wainwright has a population of approximately 6,600.

It was not immediately clear what caused the incident.

Reuters contributed to this report.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/WswVY6u
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

A Biden-appointed judge dealt the Trump administration another legal blow Thursday, tossing its lawsuit seeking to upend New York City’s sanctuary policies after ruling that the Justice Department’s arguments amounted to a "backdoor around the Tenth Amendment."

The Trump administration sued New York City in July 2025, alleging that its sanctuary laws unlawfully hinder federal immigration enforcement by restricting local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal authorities.

The New York City case is one of more than two dozen lawsuits the Trump administration has filed against state and local jurisdictions over sanctuary and related policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

But U.S. District Judge Ramón E. Reyes Jr. ruled that the federal government lacked standing to challenge New York City’s restrictions on honoring ICE detainers and rejected the Justice Department’s claims that the city’s sanctuary policies are preempted by federal law.

MAMDANI BLASTS FEDS FOR WAGING 'CAMPAIGN OF VIOLENCE AND TERROR' AGAINST NYC'S IMMIGRANTS

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani celebrated the ruling in a Friday post on X, accusing the administration of attempting to turn city employees into immigration enforcement agents.

"The federal government tried to turn our public servants into deportation agents and force New York City to carry out ICE’s cruel agenda. Today, a federal court rejected that effort and upheld our laws. Every New Yorker deserves to seek help from their city without fear of being targeted for deportation. We will stand by our immigrant neighbors, defend our laws and protect the promise that this city belongs to all of us," Mamdani wrote.

Reyes found the administration lacked standing because striking down the city’s restrictions would not remedy its alleged harm because separate state laws restricting cooperation would remain in place.

But Abhishek Kambli, a former federal prosecutor and current partner at Holtzman Vogel, disputed that reasoning, arguing that the city's laws independently harm the federal government's authority regardless of whether similar state restrictions exist.

"The sovereign harm is done just by the fact that New York City has the law in the books, no matter what other factors prevent practical application of the United States's position," Kambli told Fox News Digital.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS NEW YORK LAW BANNING ICE AGENTS FROM WEARING MASKS

Reyes also rejected the Justice Department's argument that New York City's sanctuary policies are overridden by federal immigration law.

"Even if the United States has standing — and it does not — its preemption claims fail," Reyes wrote. "All of the United States’ preemption claims — express, conflict and field — fail because the relevant federal statutes do not regulate private actors."

The judge pointed to the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine, which prevents the federal government from forcing state and local governments to use their own officials and resources to administer federal programs.

"If states cannot remain free to control their agencies and employees to resist federal immigration enforcement, which is within states’ constitutional prerogatives, the Tenth Amendment anticommandeering doctrine means nothing," Reyes wrote.

Kambli, however, argued that Reyes misinterpreted the distinction between forcing local governments to assist federal immigration enforcement and preventing them from actively obstructing it.

"Really what the 10th Amendment anti-commandeering means is you can't force states to go from doing nothing to affirmatively assisting. What these statutes are doing is basically preventing states from actively obstructing federal immigration enforcement," Kambli said.

He argued that the Justice Department was not seeking to force New York City officials to carry out federal immigration enforcement, but instead to prevent local laws from interfering with federal authorities' ability to enforce immigration law.

"That's different from the federal government saying a state or a city is required to actively assist ICE in operations," Kambli said.

HUNDREDS OF JAILED ILLEGAL ALIENS RELEASED BACK ONTO BLUE-STATE STREETS DESPITE ICE DETAINERS, RECORDS SHOW

The Justice Department also argued that New York City's sanctuary policies went beyond simply refusing to assist federal authorities by restricting information-sharing with ICE that is protected under federal law. The administration additionally claimed that the city unfairly singled out federal immigration officials for restrictions that did not apply to other law enforcement agencies.

Reyes, however, found that federal information-sharing protections apply specifically to information about an individual's citizenship or immigration status and do not require local governments to provide ICE with broader details, such as a person's release date or whereabouts.

"The United States’ assertion that information regarding release dates and custody status is information regarding immigration or citizenship status is contrary to law," Reyes wrote.

Kambli, however, argued that the distinction over what information is being withheld misses the greater issue at hand.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

"The issue is mainly whether any state or locality that prohibits cooperation is preempted by federal law, regardless of what the information is," Kambli said.

The ruling marks the latest setback for the Trump administration's efforts to challenge sanctuary policies in federal court, following dismissals of similar lawsuits involving Boston, Los Angeles and Minnesota.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/LJFQcXN
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

Attendees at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) Exposition were skeptical of President Donald Trump’s signal that a deal with Iran to end the war may be near, arguing the United States needs to continue its military and economic pressure on Tehran to bring the conflict to a close.

"Look at history, and that area only respects strength, right?" a member of AUSA’s Marne chapter in Georgia told Fox News Digital about Iran. "We're not going to get a deal with them. We're going to have to, unfortunately, beat them into submission."

He added, "There is no such thing as negotiation. So I think we're probably looking at at least another year, if not two."

TRUMP AGAIN SAYS DEAL IS CLOSE, THEN CONFIRMS A LAST-MINUTE AGREEMENT WITH IRAN, BUT DETAILS STILL SECRET

The war began in February with joint U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran. The conflict has continued despite an April ceasefire and a June agreement intended to pave the way for a broader settlement, which later collapsed amid renewed fighting.

Trump still signals optimism about ending the conflict, saying earlier this month that Iran was "ready to fold up" and suggesting the war could end before the November midterm elections.

"It looks like you guys are holding off because of the midterms," Lincoln from Australia said.

He also argued that wealthy Gulf allies should take greater responsibility for their own security.

"But it also appears that the Gulf allies need to step up and start doing something for themselves, for their own defense," Lincoln said. "Saudi Arabia doesn't seem to be doing enough."

"It shouldn't just be the United States providing security for the entire world," he added.

TRUMP’S IRAN DEAL REACHES MAKE-OR-BREAK DEADLINE AS 60-DAY NEGOTIATING CLOCK EXPIRES

Trump said Thursday that he would not use nuclear weapons against Iran after reports started circulating that the Department of War was developing new strike plans that could include using a bomb known as the "Mother of All Bombs" against Iranian nuclear sites and energy infrastructure.

"I know they tried diplomatic channels and … that's a good idea," Joe from Florida said. "It looks like we have to move beyond that. It looks like force is needed. They keep trying force on us. Let's talk their language."

An Army veteran had more optimism toward the prospects of a deal, arguing that continued economic pressure on Iran could help to end the conflict.

"Physically, they're having a hard time because there's a lot of pressure on them," Carl from Maryland said. "They're running low on resources, cash."

US ECONOMIC CHOKEHOLD ON IRAN REACHES PEAK LEVERAGE AS COLLAPSE RISKS EMERGE

He continued, "I think that more of … this continued pressure on them — economically, the sanctions — not allowing them to export the oil that they've done in the past to their other partners will continue to put pressure on them to cease hostilities."

But even among those who expressed support for Trump's handling of the conflict, questions remained about whether the Trump administration could end the conflict through negotiations.

"I respect the hell out of President Trump," the AUSA Marne chapter member said. "I think he'll do what he can, it's best for our country, but I'm very skeptical that there's any type of brokered peace between us and Iran."

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/GQnH0kc
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and former Rep. Mary Peltola traded blows Thursday night in the final debate of a Senate race that has surprised some political observers with how close it has become.

The latest Fox News Power Rankings rate Alaska’s Senate race as a "toss-up," meaning neither party has an edge. Alaska has historically favored the GOP, though the party’s margin of victory has narrowed in recent cycles.

Sullivan and Peltola clashed over energy costs, the Iran war, Social Security reform, health care policy, military spending, allegations of misconduct and fish, among other topics, but a handful of exchanges stood out from the rest.

GOP SENATOR, EX-HOUSE DEM EMERGE FROM ALASKA’S ‘JUNGLE PRIMARY’ DESPITE FAR-LEFT MEDDLING

Throughout the debate, Peltola attacked Sullivan for being a D.C. insider and using his position to enrich himself and his allies. Sullivan attempted to rebut her claims by pointing to Peltola’s extensive lobbying career after her time in office, accusing her of cashing in by selling influence.

"My opponent keeps talking about corporate greed again; she defines the rigged system in DC," Sullivan said. "There's nothing more rigged than a member of Congress getting fired and then immediately walking through the revolving door to cash in. She made almost half a million last year as a DC lobbyist selling her knowledge of DC. She did it when she left the state legislature; she set up a lobbying firm."

"You're walking through the revolving door so much, you must be getting dizzy up here," he quipped.

Peltola responded by saying that her lobbying work was done to benefit Alaskans and highlighting how Sullivan has gotten wealthier since coming to Washington.

"Dan's been in DC for 12 years and gotten richer every single one of those years. That's the corruption that Alaskans are really sick of, and that's the corruption that I'll fight against. Dan went to DC with $3 million. He now has $8 million," she said. "Dan's doing just fine watching out for himself."

After Peltola responded to a question about how she would work to improve affordability for Alaskans if elected to the Senate while appearing to read from a piece of paper, Sullivan questioned whether she had received a copy of the debate questions in advance.

"Here's a moderator question, we weren't supposed to get these questions beforehand, were we?" Sullivan asked.

"No sir," one moderator responded.

"Neither one of you got questions beforehand," the other moderator said. "Absolutely not."

CARVILLE MOCKS DEM CANDIDATE STAFFERS AS 'WEAK' AND 'SOFT' FOR COMPLAINING ABOUT TREATMENT TO NEW YORK TIMES

"I'm just watching my opponent read questions that seem to be answered," the senator said.

After Sullivan brought up a New York Times report airing complaints from anonymous staffers alleging that Peltola physically and verbally mistreated her employees, the Democrat lashed out at the incumbent senator, prompting moderators to interject.

"Look, my opponent has been telling lies throughout this entire campaign, and it's revealed character challenges. But it's not just the lies. Take a look at how she treats Alaskans when the cameras are off," Sullivan said. "Look at that New York Times story. She treats young Alaskans horribly. 25 staffers quit on Mary Pelton because she abused them physically and emotionally, and then she slanders every other group — African Americans, special needs individuals. It is a character flaw of my opponent."

Sullivan’s statement prompted Peltola to attempt to cut him off, calling the reports "gossip" and "unfounded."

"Let's have some decorum here," a moderator said, after Peltola began to interrupt Sullivan, who was speaking past his allotted time.

Though Peltola’s campaign disputed several of the allegations, including claims that she used slurs and shoved a young staffer, her spokesman said some of her behavior came during a period of extreme grief after the deaths of her mother and husband in 2023.

DEM SENATE HOPEFUL RACKED UP HUNDREDS OF MISSED VOTES DURING STOPS AT MULTIPLE TAXPAYER SERVING JOBS

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

Another heated moment came after Sullivan accused Peltola of blocking pay for members of the armed services over access to transgender medical procedures.

"My opponent, did vote against our military, did vote against pay raise for our troops because she wanted more transgender surgeries for our troops. I mean, that is an outrage," the senator said.

"I need to rebut that, that is absurd," Peltola interjected.

"Yeah. I think that Alaskans have had it up to here with the lying and the dishonesty. Dan, you should be ashamed of yourself for propagating these lies," the Democrat responded. "The first time I voted on the NDAA, there was trick language in there that would have prohibited our soldiers from getting health care that they needed if they were not stationed in a state that didn't allow for women's reproductive health care. I'm not doing that to our soldiers. But three other times I voted hard yes, in support of our troops."

Near the end of the debate, each candidate was asked to say one nice thing about their opponent.

"Well, my wife invited Mary to attend my Marine Corps retirement ceremony after 30 years, and they honored me, but they honored my wife and daughters more than anybody at my retirement ceremony … and Mary Peltola attended, so I thank her for that," Sullivan said.

"Yeah, that was a lovely, lovely service. And I was so proud to be there. And one, you know, three wonderful attributes of Dan and Julie are their lovely daughters. So that's three lovely things I can say about Dan and Julie," said Peltola.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/p8NWBOF
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

The Trump administration is being sued over its efforts to collect and analyze sensitive voter data from across the country.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, alleges the Department of Homeland Security has obtained voter files from at least 47 states and handled the data in a way that violates federal law.

DHS' secretive probe of the voter data, which includes a policy to combine it with commercial datasets, ignores federal safeguards and the privacy rights of millions of Americans, the lawsuit says.

The case was brought by the League of Women Voters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the League of United Latin American Citizens and is the latest legal challenge to President Donald Trump's efforts to combat noncitizen voting.

STATE DEPARTMENT CONSIDERS SHARING PASSPORT RECORDS FOR VOTER CITIZENSHIP CHECKS

The president has purported repeatedly argued that noncitizen voting poses a serious threat to election integrity, although studies and prosecutions have found documented instances of noncitizens casting ballots to be rare.

The administration has repeatedly sought a greater federal role in voter eligibility and election administration, areas traditionally overseen primarily by states under the Constitution and federal law.

Federal courts have repeatedly rejected administration efforts to compel states to turn over voter information.

The new lawsuit alleges the administration has obtained and processed voter records from at least 47 states, even though officials in 30 states have previously refused federal demands to turn over voter information.

The complaint urges the court to declare the administration's collection of voter data illegal, block DHS' policy and order the agency to delete and stop using the voter information it has already obtained.

The lawsuit comes less than three weeks before Election Day, and the administration continues to pressure states, alleging they are not doing enough to purge noncitizens from their voter rolls.

TRUMP SCORES SUPREME COURT WIN IN ELECTION INTEGRITY FIGHT AS STATES GAIN NEW VOTER ROLL TOOL

The administration sued California election officials on Thursday, arguing they failed to act quickly enough to review names the federal government identified as "likely" noncitizens. The Justice Department asked a judge to block the state from counting mail-in ballots from those individuals unless their eligibility can be confirmed.

The California secretary of state's office said it was given only 48 hours to review roughly 20,000 names and said the federal government had not provided the underlying evidence or methodology supporting its claims.

The Justice Department's lawsuit, however, says U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services conducted a "multiagency and multilevel review" and determined with "high confidence" that roughly 20,000 people on California's voter rolls were likely noncitizens.

DHS did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/OYN4wP8
via IFTTT