Some institutions have scrapped Columbus Day or switched to celebrating Indigenous Peoples' Day. One New Jersey school district came up with a new solution: eliminate all holiday names.; Credit: Olesya Semenov/EyeEm via Getty Images

Memorial Day. Thanksgiving. Labor Day.

You may be used to seeing your calendar punctuated by the various holidays that occur throughout the year.

But on one New Jersey school district's calendar, each one of these days will be listed, simply, as "day off."

It all started when the school board in Randolph Township voted to change Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples' Day. Some residents were outraged, so the board said that instead it would wipe holiday names from the school calendar altogether while still observing the days off.

"The overwhelming majority of the township population feels that they've [Randolph Township school board members] grossly overstepped their bounds, that they're completely pushing their own personal, political ideologies," Randolph resident Tom Tatem told Fox News. He started a petition calling on school officials to resign.

Institutions across the country are wrestling with the question of what to do with Columbus Day.

Critics have derided the idea of celebrating the Italian explorer, who perpetrated violence on Native Americans when he arrived in the United States. Boosters say it is critical to recognize the contributions of Christopher Columbus, and that Italian-Americans have historically faced discrimination.

Some places have switched to marking Indigenous Peoples' Day in recognition of the Native Americans who occupied the United States long before European explorers like Columbus arrived.

Randolph Township arrived at a novel solution to this problem: eliminate every holiday name to avoid taking a side.

The goal appears to have been to sidestep the debate over Columbus Day, but the Randolph Township school system instead found itself squarely in it, and opponents of the move have called on school officials to resign.

The Randolph Board of Education is now scheduled to convene Monday for a special meeting to reconsider its plan to remove holiday names from the school calendar.

What's happening in New Jersey

In May, the Randolph school board voted unanimously to replace Christopher Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples' Day.

Some parents grew angry with the decision, but instead of reverting back to the old calendar, the board moved in early June to scrap all holiday names from the school calendar, not giving preference to either one of the October celebrations.

"If we don't have anything on this calendar, then we don't have to have anyone [with] hurt feelings," Randolph school board member Dorene Roche said during a June 10 public meeting, according to NJ.com.

The backlash has only grown.

A petition calling on Randolph Township Schools superintendent Jennifer Fano and members of the board of education to resign has topped 4,000 signatures. "They represent everything that is wrong in education today and are completely incompetent in every aspect of their role," the petition says.

For its part, the school board acknowledged the public outcry but said its decision was misconstrued by some people.

A press release issued by the Randolph board of education on Sunday clarified that the holidays will still be observed as days off and that their decision was not meant to dishonor "the great veterans and the heroes" after which several of those holidays are named.

"These State, Federal and other holidays have not been cancelled or taken away by this Board of Education as some are falsely claiming," the board said. "Everyone is still encouraged to celebrate them in whatever way they deem appropriate."

Matthew Pfouts, director of communications and digital media for the Randolph Township Schools, told NPR the board has no further comment.

Changing views on holidays

On the national level, Columbus Day remains a federal holiday.

But a number of states, including Alaska and Virginia, as well as some cities either observe Indigenous Peoples' Day as a holiday or celebrate it in some way.

The movement away from Columbus Day has not come without controversy.

The New York City Department of Education tried to rename Columbus Day over objections and eventually settled on marking a holiday called "Italian Heritage Day/Indigenous People's Day," which drew its own set of critiques. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said it was wrong to make the two groups share one holiday.

There are also other efforts to recognize the role people of color played in American history.

This week, the Senate unanimously passed a bill to make Juneteenth — the day marking the end of slavery in the U.S. — a public holiday.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: shuoshu/Getty Images

New rules kick in today that will help aspiring teachers pay for college and complete a years-long overhaul of the federal TEACH Grant program — from a bureaucratic bear trap that hobbled thousands of teachers with unfair student loan debts to a program that may actually make good on its foundational promise: to help K-12 educators pay for their own education in exchange for teaching a high-need subject, like math, for four years in a low-income community.

"The changes announced today deliver much-needed improvements to the TEACH Grant," said U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona. "Respecting and honoring teachers who serve students with the greatest needs also requires that we ensure these educators receive the support to which they are entitled from this important federal program without having to jump through unnecessary hoops."

In Dec. 2018, the Department of Education under Secretary Betsy DeVos committed to overhauling the program and, last summer, posted its more flexible revisions. Among those changes that go into effect today, teachers will no longer have their grants automatically converted to loans if they fail to submit annual certification paperwork. Instead, with eight years to make good on a four-year teaching requirement, teachers won't have their grants converted to loans until completion of the required service is no longer feasible.

The rule changes to the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program were outlined by the U.S. Department of Education nearly a year ago but only go into effect today. And they are the culmination of a story that began several years ago, when the Government Accountability Office, followed by an NPR investigation, revealed that the program's strict paperwork requirements — what Cardona calls "unnecessary hoops" — were tripping up teachers who were keeping their end of the deal.

In accordance with the program's old rules, if a teacher did not submit annual paperwork on time documenting their teaching service in a qualified school, their TEACH Grants were automatically converted into loans that must be paid back with interest. Teachers who tried to appeal this conversion were given little recourse and told the process was not reversible.

Kaitlyn McCollum was teaching high school in Tennessee when her federal TEACH Grants were turned into more than $20,000 in loans simply because she had narrowly missed a paperwork deadline. In the spring of 2019, her debts were erased as part of the department's overhaul.

"We won," she told NPR. "We raised our voices and they finally heard us. Disbelief followed by a relief like I have not felt before."

While the program's flaws date back to its beginning, in 2008, it was the Trump administration that agreed to a remedy and apologized to teachers.

"We've put teachers who didn't deserve this stress, this pressure, this financial burden in a position that is frightening and confusing," the Education Department's then-acting undersecretary and acting assistant secretary, Diane Auer Jones, told NPR in 2019. "It seems like a small thing to do to say, 'I'm sorry,' but I'm very sorry. And we want to work to fix it and correct it."

In Aug. 2020, NPR reported that, since the program's overhaul began, more than 6,500 educators had successfully petitioned to have nearly $44 million in loans turned back into TEACH Grants. For teachers who could prove they had already completed their required service, their debts were simply discharged. For teachers still serving, the conversion meant they could resume the deal they made with the department and work to keep their grant money.

The new regulations also give teachers more options for pausing their service obligation, create a formal reconsideration process for any teacher who believes they've had their grants converted unfairly, and expand the scope of the program to include not only low-income communities but also high-need, rural areas where recruiting and retaining teachers can be difficult.

The Biden Administration says it wants to expand the TEACH Grant, making it more generous. If passed by Congress, the American Families Plan would increase the grant for college juniors, seniors and graduate students from $4,000 a year to $8,000 and would also make it available to many early childhood educators. In a release, the Education Department said it expects these changes would increase the number of TEACH recipients by more than 50 percent, to nearly 40,000 in 2022 — welcome news to school leaders in remote and high-need communities that sometimes struggle to entice new talent to the classroom.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that low-level crack cocaine offenders cannot benefit from a 2018 federal law.; Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that some crack cocaine offenders sentenced to harsh prison terms more than a decade ago cannot get their sentences reduced under a federal law adopted with the purpose of doing just that.

At issue in the case was the long and now notorious history of sentencing under the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established harsh mandatory prison sentences based on the amount of drugs that the defendant possessed or sold. The triggering amount, however, was different for crack cocaine used most often by Black people, and powder cocaine, used most often by whites.

Indeed, the ratio was 100-to-1, so that a five-year mandatory minimum penalty, for instance, was triggered by possession of 5 grams of crack, whereas the same penalty was triggered by 500 grams of powder cocaine.

Nine years after enactment of these mandatory penalties, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found these disparities unjustified, and by 2010 Congress passed new legislation to reduce the disparity to from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. But that left everyone previously sentenced under the old regime stuck with the harsher penalties. And in 2018, Congress passed and then-President Donald Trump signed into law a bipartisan bill to make the new ratios retroactive.

That allowed thousands of crack offenders who were serving prison sentences to be resentenced under the new law and new sentencing guidelines, with an average reduction of six years in their sentences. But while the new law allowed even drug kingpins to be resentenced, some prisoners were left out — a number now in the low hundreds, according to the Biden administration.

One of those was the prisoner at the center of Monday's case, Tarahrick Terry, sentenced to nearly 16 years in prison for possession with intent to distribute 3.9 grams of crack cocaine, less than the weight of four paper clips.

He claimed that his sentence, like others, should be revised in light of the 2018 law, but the Supreme Court rejected that argument. Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that Terry had been sentenced under a section of the law that applied to "career criminals," those who had two previous drug or violent convictions. Terry did, in fact, have two previous drug convictions as a teenager — for which he spent 120 days in jail.

So, as Thomas observed, Terry was sentenced under the provision of the law that was not included in the 2018 revision.

Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Cory Booker and Republican Sens. Charles Grassley and Mike Lee — the sponsors and drafters of the act — warned in a friend of the court brief filed in the case that excluding low-level offenders from the act's reforms would mean ignoring its purpose. "Had Congress intended to exclude individuals with low-level crack offenses from relief," they wrote, "Congress of course could have done so."

Thomas and the rest of the court rejected that argument. "We will not convert nouns to adjectives and vice versa," wrote Thomas, which is what he said Congress was asking the court to do. The 2018 law, he said, did not change the section of the law under which Terry was sentenced, so the argument that the revision modified the whole law just wouldn't wash.

Although the decision was unanimous, it included an interesting back-and-forth about race between Thomas, the only African American on the court and arguably its most conservative member, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, its only Hispanic and arguably most liberal member. Specifically, their disagreement was about the role race played in the adoption of mandatory minimum sentences that were wildly more harsh for possession or sale of crack cocaine than for powder cocaine.

As Thomas saw it, the 100-to-1 ratio for crack cocaine was enacted "with near unanimity" by Congress, because of two concerns expressed by Black leaders at the time: First, that crack "was fueling crime against residents in the inner cities who were predominantly black," and second that "prosecutors were not taking these kinds of crimes seriously enough because the victims were disproportionately black." Moreover, he quoted a 1995 U.S. Sentencing Commission report that concluded the 100-to-1 ratio created "a perception of unfairness," even though there was no reason to believe that "racial bias or animus undergirded the initiation of the federal sentencing law."

In a concurring opinion, Sotomayor declined to join that part of Thomas' opinion, because "it includes an unnecessary, incomplete, and sanitized history of the 100-to-1 ratio," including "race-based myths" about crack cocaine.

"The full history is far less benign," she said. It ignores the fact that Black leaders were promised federal investment in longer term solutions — including in job training and education programs — but that help never arrived. Nor, she noted, did the majority opinion mention that the bill containing the 100-to-1 ratio was "rush[ed] through to pass dramatic drug legislation before the midterm elections," and that the legislative history of the bill offered no justification for the 100-to-1 ratio, "save that it was the highest ratio proposed."

"Most egregiously, the Court barely references the ratio's real-world impact" — one so profound and unjustified, as demonstrated by subsequent research — "that the [Congressional Black Caucus] came together in unanimous and increasingly vocal opposition to the law."

In the end, however, Sotomayor agreed that "unfortunately," the reading of the law urged by the primary sponsors of the 2018 revision is not born out by the text. "Fortunately," she added, "Congress has numerous tools to right this injustice."

As for prisoner Terry, who brought Monday's case, he is now in the final months of his prison term, and according to the Biden administration is serving his remaining time in home confinement.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A demonstrator holds a sign in support of the Affordable Care Act in front of the U.S. Supreme Court last November. On Thursday, the justices did just that.; Credit: Alex Brandon/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act for the third time on Thursday, leaving in place the broad provisions of the law enacted by Congress in 201o. The vote was 7 to 2.

The opinion was authored by Justice Stephen Breyer who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision threw out the challenge to the law on the grounds that Texas and other objecting GOP-dominated states were not required to pay anything under the mandate provision and thus had no standing to bring the challenge to court.

"To have standing, a plaintiff must 'allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,' " the majority wrote. "No plaintiff has shown such an injury 'fairly traceable' to the 'allegedly unlawful conduct' challenged here."

The mandate, the most controversial provision of the law, required that people either buy health insurance or pay a penalty. In 2012, it was upheld by a 5-4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the decisive fifth vote, on the grounds that the penalty fell within the taxing power of Congress.

In 2017, Congress got rid of the penalty after the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the law would continue to function effectively without it. That prompted the challengers to go back to court, contending that because the penalty had been zeroed out, it was no longer a tax or a mandate. What's more, they contended, because the mandate was so interwoven with the rest of the ACA, the whole law must be struck down.

Over 31 million Americans have access health insurance through the ACA — a record high since the law's inception, the White House said last week. In addition, the Urban Institute reported in May that ACA premiums have gone down each of the last three years.

Many of the provisions of the ACA are now taken for granted. Up to 135 million people are covered by the ban on discrimination against those with preexisting conditions.

Young adults are now permitted to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26; copays are not permitted for preventive care; and insurance companies can no longer put lifetime caps on benefits, are required to spend 80% of premiums on medical coverage and are barred from discrimination based on factors like gender.

In addition, Medicaid coverage was greatly expanded after all but a dozen states took advantage of the ACA to expand federally subsidized coverage under the program. Among those who have benefited are many who lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs in the COVID-19 pandemic.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with students on Wednesday, ruling that a former cheerleader's online F-bombs about her school is protected speech under the First Amendment.

By an 8-1 vote, the court declared that school administrators do have the power to punish student speech that occurs online or off campus if it genuinely disrupts classroom study. But the justices concluded that a few swear words posted online from off campus, as in this case, did not rise to the definition of disruptive.

"While public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B. L.'s interest in free expression in this case," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court's majority.

At issue in the case was a series of F-bombs issued in 2017 on Snapchat by Brandi Levy, then a 14-year-old high school cheerleader who failed to win a promotion from the junior varsity to the varsity cheerleading term at her Pennsylvania school.

"I was really upset and frustrated at everything," she said in an interview with NPR in April. So she posted a photo of herself and a friend flipping the bird to the camera, along with a message that said, "F*** the school ... F*** cheer, F*** everything."

Suspended from the team for what was considered disruptive behavior, Brandi and her parents went to court. They argued that the school had no right to punish her for off-campus speech, whether it was posted online while away from school, as in this case, or spoken out loud at a Starbucks across the street from school.

A federal appeals court agreed with her, declaring that school officials have no authority to punish students for speech that occurs in places unconnected to the campus.

The decision marked the first time that an appeals court issued such a broad interpretation of the Supreme Court's landmark student speech decision more then a half century ago. Back then, in a case involving students suspended for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War, the court ruled that students do have free speech rights under the Constitution, as long as the speech is not disruptive to the school.

Although Brandi Levy is now in college, the school board in Mahanoy, Pa., appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that disruption can come from outside the campus but still have serious effects on campus. It pointed to laws in 47 states that require schools to enforce anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies.

The high court, however, focused on the facts in Levy's case, concluding that while her posts were less than admirable, they did not meet the test of being disruptive.

"We do not believe the special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus," Breyer wrote. "The school's regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: "If today's decision teaches any lesson, it must be that the regulation of many types of off-premises student speech raises serious First Amendment concerns, and school officials should proceed cautiously before venturing into this territory."

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the school was right to suspend Levy because students like her "who are active in extracurricular programs have a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm those programs."

"For example, a profanity-laced screed delivered on social media or at the mall has a much different effect on a football program when done by a regular student than when done by the captain of the football team," Thomas wrote. "So, too, here."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

In a case originating with a California Highway Patrol officer's pursuit of a vehicle and ultimately entering the driver's home, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police may not enter homes without a warrant for minor crimes.; Credit: Chris Carlson/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot enter a home without a warrant when pursuing someone for a minor crime.

By a unanimous vote, the court declared that police violated the rights of a California man by pursuing him into his garage for allegedly playing loud music while driving down a deserted two-lane highway late at night.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Elena Kagan said police had no right to enter the man's home without a warrant for such a trivial offense.

"On many occasions, the officer will have good reason to enter – to prevent imminent harms of violence, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home," she wrote. "But when the officer has time to get a warrant, he must do so – even though the misdemeanant fled."

The court's ruling came in the case of Arthur Lange, who was playing loud music in his car late one night, at one point honking his horn several times. A California highway patrol officer, believing Lange was violating a noise ordinance, followed him, and when the motorist slowed to enter his driveway, the officer put on his flashing lights.

Lange, who later said he didn't notice the police car, drove into his garage. The officer, in "hot pursuit," got out of his car and put his foot under the closing garage door sensor to force the door open again. He had no warrant to enter the home, but once inside, he said, he smelled liquor on Lange's breath and arrested him, not only for the noise violation, but also for driving under the influence.

Lange appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, contending that the officer had no right to enter his home without a warrant and that the DUI evidence had been illegally obtained.

The Supreme Court has long held that police may conduct a warrantless search when pursuing a fleeing felon. The question in Lange's case was whether police are free to do the same thing when pursuing someone suspected of a minor offense like playing loud music.

"[P]ursuit of a misdemeanant does not trigger a categorical rule allowing a warrantless home entry," she wrote.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Supreme Court found that a law that allowed farmworkers union organizers onto farm property during nonworking hours unconstitutionally appropriates private land.; Credit: Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Wednesday tightened the leash on union representatives and their ability to organize farmworkers in California and elsewhere. At issue in the case was a California law that allows union organizers to enter farms to speak to workers during nonworking hours — before and after work, as well as during lunch — for a set a number of days each year.

By a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, the court ruled that the law — enacted nearly 50 years ago after a campaign by famed organizer Cesar Chavez — unconstitutionally appropriates private land by allowing organizers to go on farm property to drum up union support.

"The regulation appropriates a right to physically invade the growers' property," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's conservative majority. "The access regulation amounts to simple appropriation of private property."

The decision is a potentially mortal blow that threatens the very existence of the farmworkers union. However, the ruling stopped short of upending other laws that allow government officials to enter private property to inspect and enforce health and safety rules that cover everything restaurants to toxic chemical sites.

Indeed, as Roberts wrote: "Under this framework, government health and safety inspection regimes will generally not constitute takings."

The court's decision on Wednesday was only the latest in a series of decisions that have aimed directly at the heart of organized labor in the United States. In 2018, the court hamstrung public-sector unions' efforts to raise money for collective bargaining. In that decision, the court by a 5-4 vote overturned a 40-year precedent that had allowed unions to collect limited "fair share" fees from workers not in the union but who benefited from the terms of the contract that the union negotiated.

The case decided by the court on Wednesday began in 2015 at Cedar Point Nursery, near the Oregon border. The nursery's owner, Mike Fahner, said union organizers entered the farm at 5 a.m. one morning, without the required notice, and began harassing his workers with bullhorns. The general counsel for the United Farm Workers, Mario Martinez, countered that the people with bullhorns were striking workers, not union organizers.

When Cedar Point filed a complaint with the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the board found no illegal behavior and dismissed the complaint. Cedar Point, joined by another California grower, appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing they should be able to exclude organizers from their farms.

Writing for the court's three liberals, Justice Stephen Breyer said the access in the case was "temporary" and so did not constitute a "taking" under the law.

The rule, he wrote , is "not functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government directly appropriates private property or ousts the owner from his domain."

"In my view, the majority's conclusion threatens to make many ordinary forms of regulation unusually complex or impractical," he wrote.

The court's decision could be disastrous for unions in general, but especially those that represent low-income workers. The growers asserted that unions should have no problem organizing workers in the era of the internet. But many of the workers at Cedar Point don't own smartphones and don't have internet access. What's more, many speak Spanish or indigenous languages and live scattered throughout the area, in motels, in labor camps or with friends and family, often moving after just a few weeks when the seasonal harvest is over.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Britney Spears performing onstage in Las Vegas in 2016.; Credit: Christopher Polk/Getty Images

Addressing a Los Angeles Superior Court judge today via a remote connection, Britney Spears on Wednesday afternoon made her most public statement to date about her long-running conservatorship. For over a decade, the pop star's life has been ruled by an atypical court-dictated legal arrangement that removes practically all autonomy from her life. Until now, the pop star has remained mostly quiet on the subject.

Today, in a passionate statement, she plead for the conservatorship to end. According to tweets sent by observers on the scene, Spears was open and outspoken about her situation. She said her life was being exploited, and she can't sleep, is depressed and cries every day. She stated that she wants another baby, but is forced by the agreement to keep an IUD in place.

Before today, after a recent New York Times and FX documentary, Framing Britney Spears, reignited interest in her story and the wider #FreeBritney movement, she has shied away from public comment, but did share some thoughts on social media.

"I didn't watch the documentary but from what I did see of it I was embarrassed by the light they put me in," she wrote in an Instagram caption in March. "I cried for two weeks and well .... I still cry sometimes !!!!"

But on Tuesday, The New York Times, citing recently obtained confidential court records, reported that Spears has been trying to fight her conservatorship for years.

"She articulated she feels the conservatorship has become an oppressive and controlling tool against her," a court investigator wrote in a 2016 report. The system had "too much control," Ms. Spears said, according to the investigator's account of the conversation. "Too, too much!"

Ms. Spears informed the investigator that she wanted the conservatorship terminated as soon as possible. "She is 'sick of being taken advantage of' and she said she is the one working and earning her money but everyone around her is on her payroll," the investigator wrote.

In 2019, Ms. Spears told the court that she had felt forced by the conservatorship into a stay at a mental health facility and to perform against her will.

You can find more details about the history of her conservatorship here, but these are the broad strokes:

In 2008, Britney Spears' father, Jamie Spears, gained control of all aspects of his daughter's life after the singer publicly struggled with her mental health. (As the Framing Britney Spears documentary brought new attention to her case, it also started some soul-searching among media types who farmed her mental health issues for tabloid headlines.) Everything from her performances to her finances to her relationships with her two now-teenage sons was under her father's control.

The pop star's fans began to question the ethics and legality of the arrangement, and under the banner #FreeBritney they have sustained a lengthy campaign to see it end.

During this time, Britney Spears continued working — putting out platinum-selling albums, doing TV gigs and mounting a hugely successful four-year residency in Las Vegas. She had no control over the financial arrangements of any of these projects.

In a 2020 court filing, Spears asked the court to suspend her father from his role as conservator and refused to perform if he remained in charge of her career. As a result, a wealth-management company became a co-conservator for her finances, but her father presently remains the main conservator for all other aspects of Spears' life.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Federal prosecutors secured their first guilty plea Wednesday in the Justice Department's sprawling conspiracy case involving the Oath Keepers extremist group in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

At a hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., Graydon Young pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and one count of obstruction of an official proceeding. The 55-year-old Florida resident agreed to cooperate with investigators, which could prove critical as the government pursues the remaining defendants in the high-profile case.

Young is one of 16 people associated with the Oath Keepers to be charged with conspiracy, obstruction and other offenses over the Capitol riot. Prosecutors say the defendants coordinated their efforts and actions to try to disrupt Congress' certification of the Electoral College count on Jan. 6.

More than 500 people have been charged so far in connection with the Capitol breach, but the Oath Keepers conspiracy case is one of the most closely watched because of the allegations and the link to an extremist organization.

Young is the second defendant linked to the Oath Keepers to plead guilty. Jon Schaffer pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding and entering restricted grounds with a dangerous weapon in April.

According to Young's statement of offense, he coordinated with his co-conspirators ahead of Jan. 6 and used encrypted messaging apps to maintain "operational security."

On the day itself, the document says, Young and some of his co-conspirators pushed through U.S. Capitol Police lines guarding the Capitol and into the building.

"Mr. Young believed that he and the co-conspirators were trying to obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, that is, a proceeding before Congress, specifically, Congress's certification of the Electoral College vote," the document says.

At Wednesday's hearing, Judge Amit Mehta read that passage to Young to ensure that it was accurate.

"Yes, sir," Young replied, "that is correct."

According to the plea deal, Young has agreed to cooperate fully with prosecutors, including sitting for interviews with investigators and testifying before the grand jury and at trial.

The government, meanwhile, has agreed to dismiss the remaining charges against him. Even so, Mehta said Young is facing a possible prison sentence of 5 to 6 1/2 years under the sentencing guidelines.

Wednesday brought another significant development in the Capitol investigation.

Anna Morgan-Lloyd, a 49-year-old from Indiana who described Jan. 6 as the "best day ever," became the first Capitol riot defendant to be sentenced.

Morgan-Lloyd was not accused of taking part in any of the violence at the Capitol. She pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of "parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building."

Judge Royce Lamberth sentenced her to three years of probation and no jail time.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Britney Spears arrives for a movie premier in Hollywood, Calif., on July 22, 2019. On Wednesday, the singer asked a judge to end her conservatorship.; Credit: Valerie Macon/AFP via Getty Images

Britney Spears is asking a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to end her 13-year conservatorship, saying she is being exploited, bullied and feeling "left out and alone."

Below is a transcript from a leaked audio recording of part of Spears' court statement Wednesday posted on YouTube and verified by NPR.

Britney Spears: I will be honest with you, I haven't been back to court in a long time because I don't think I was heard on any level when I came to court the last time. I brought four sheets of paper in my hands and wrote in length what I had been through the last four months before I came there. The people who did that to me should not be able to walk away so easily. I'll recap: I was on tour in 2018; I was forced to do. My management said if I don't do this tour I will have to find an attorney.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Brenda Penny: Ms. Spears, Ms. Spears. I hate to interrupt you, but my court reporter is taking down what you're saying.

Spears: OK.

Penny: And so you have to speak a little more slowly.

Spears: Oh, of course. Yes. OK. I apologize. Great.

Penny: So we hear and make a record of everything you're saying.

Spears: The people who did this to me should not get away and be able to walk away so easily. Recap: I was on tour in 2018. I was forced to do. My management said if I don't do this tour, I will have to find an attorney and by contract my own management could sue me if I didn't follow through with the tour. He handed me a sheet of paper as I got off the stage in Vegas and said I had to sign it. It was very threatening and scary and with the conservatorship, I couldn't even get my own attorney. So out of fear, I went ahead and I did the tour. When I came off that tour, a new show in Las Vegas was supposed to take place. I started rehearsing early, but it was hard cause I'd been doing Vegas for four years and I needed a break in between.

But no, I was told this is the timeline and this is how it's gonna go. I rehearsed four to four days a week, half of the time in the studio and a half of the other time in a Westlake studio. I was basically directing most of the show with my whereabouts, where I preferred to rehearse and actually did most of the choreography, meaning I taught my dancers my new choreography myself. I take everything I do very seriously. There's tons of video with me at rehearsals. I wasn't good. I was great. I led a room of 16 new dancers in rehearsals. It's funny to hear my manager's side of the story. They all said I wasn't participating in rehearsals and I never agreed to take my medication, which my medication is only taken in the mornings, never at rehearsal. They don't even see me. So why are they even claiming that?

When I said no to one dance move into rehearsals, it was as if I planted a huge bomb somewhere and I said, no, I don't want to do it this way. After that, my management, my dancers and my assistant of the new people that were supposed to do the new show all went into a room, shut the door and didn't come out for at least 45 minutes. Ma'am, I'm not here to be anyone's slave. I can say no to a dance move. I was told by my — at the time — therapist, Dr. Benson, who died, that my manager called him and then that moment and told him I wasn't cooperating or following the guidelines in rehearsals. And he also said I wasn't taking my medication, which is so dumb because I've had the same lady every morning for the past eight years give me my same medication and I'm nowhere near these stupid people. It made no sense at all.

There was a week period where they — they were nice to me and they said, "I don't want to do —" And I told them, "I don't want to do the —" They, wait, no — they were nice to me. They said, if I don't want to do the new Vegas show, I don't have to cause I was getting really nervous. I said, "I can wait." It was like, they told me I could wait. It was like lifting literally 200 pounds off of me when they said I don't have to do the show anymore cause it was — I was really, really hard on myself and it was too much.

I couldn't take it anymore. So I remember telling my assistant, "But you know what, I feel weird if I say no. I feel like they're going to come back and be mean to me or punish me or something." Three days later, after I said no to Vegas, my therapist sat me down in a room and said he had a million phone calls about how I was not cooperating in rehearsals and I haven't been taking my medication. All of this was a false. He — he immediately the next day put me on lithium out of nowhere. He took me off my normal meds I'd been on for five years. And lithium is a very, very strong and completely different medication compared to what I was used to. You can go mentally impaired if you take too much, if you stay on it longer than five months. But he put me on that and I felt drunk. I really couldn't even take up for myself. I couldn't even have a conversation with my mom or dad really about anything. I told them I was scared and my doctor had me on — six different nurses with this new medication come to my home, stay with me to monitor me on this new medication, which I never wanted to be on to begin with.

There were six different nurse — nurses in my homes and they wouldn't let me get in my car to go anywhere for — for a month. Not only did my family not do a goddamn thing, my dad was all for it. Anything that happened to me had to be approved by my dad. And my dad only — he acted like he didn't know that I was told I had to be tested over the Christmas holidays before they sent me away when my kids went home to Louisiana. He was the one who approved all of it. My whole family did nothing. Over the two-week holiday, a lady came into my home for four hours a day, sat me down and did a psych test on me. It took forever, but I was — I was told I had to then — after that I got off — Wait.

I was told — I had to then after I got a phone call from my dad saying after I did the psych test with this lady, basically saying I had failed the test or whatever — whatever. "I'm sorry, Britney, you have to listen to your doctors. They are planning to send you to a small home in Beverly Hills to do a small rehab program that we're going to make up for you. You're gonna pay $60,000 a month for this."

I cried on the phone for an hour and he loved every minute of it. The control he had over someone as powerful as me as he loved the control to hurt his own daughter, 100,000%. He loved it.

I packed my bags and went to that place. I worked seven days a week, no days off — which in California, the only similar thing to this is called sex trafficking, making anyone work — work against their will. Taking all their possessions away — credit card, cash, phone, passport card — and placing them in a home where they — they work with the people who live with them. They offer — they all lived in the house with me, the nurses, the 24/7 security. There — there was one chef that came there and cooked for me daily during the weekdays. They watched me change every day, naked. Morning, noon and night. My body — I had no privacy door for my — for my room. I gave eight gallons of blood a week. If I didn't do any of my meetings and work from 8 to 6 at night — which is 10 hours a day, seven days a week, no days off — I wouldn't be able to see my kids or my boyfriend. I never had a say in my schedule. They always told me I had to do this. And ma'am, I will tell you, sitting in a chair 10 hours a day, seven days a week, it ain't fun. And especially when you can't walk out the front door.

And that's why I'm telling you this again two years later, after I've lied and told the whole world I'm OK and I'm happy. It's a lie. I thought I just — maybe I said that enough, maybe I might become happy because I've been in denial. I've been in shock. I am traumatized, you know, fake it till you make it. But now I'm telling you the truth, OK? I'm not happy. I can't sleep. I'm so angry. It's insane and I'm depressed. I cry every day. And the reason I'm telling you this is because I don't think how the state of California can have all this written in the court documents from the time I showed up and do absolutely nothing. Just hire — with my money — another person to keep — and keep my dad on board. Ma'am, my dad and anyone involved in this conservatorship and my management who played a huge role in punishing me when I said, "No, ma'am, they should be in jail." Their cruel tactics working for Miley Cyrus. If she smokes on joints and stage at the VMAs, nothing is ever done to this generation for doing wrong things. But my precious body, whose work for my dad for the past f***ing 13 years, trying to be so good and pretty. So perfect when he works me so hard, when I do everything I'm told, and the state of California allowed my ignorant father to take his own daughter, who only has a role with me if I work with him. They set back the whole course and allowed him to do that to me? That's given these people I've worked for way too much control.

They also threatened me and said if I don't go, then I have to go to court and it will be more embarrassing me if the judge publicly makes you go, "The evidence we have, you have to go." I was advised for my image. I need to go ahead and just go and get it over with. They said that to me. I don't — I don't even drink alcohol. I — I should drink alcohol, considering what they put my heart through.

Also, the Bridges Facility they sent me to none of the kids — I was doing this program for four months. So the last two months I went to a Bridges Facility. None of the kids there did the — did the program. They never showed up for any of them. You didn't have to do anything if you didn't want to. How come they always made me go? How come I was always threatened by my dad and anybody that persisted in this conservatorship? If I don't do this, what they tell me — enslave me to do, they're going to punish me. The last time I spoke to you about just keeping the conservatorship going and also keeping my dad in the loop made me feel like I was dead. Like I didn't matter. Like nothing had been done to to me. Like you thought I was lying or something. I'm telling you again, because I'm not lying. I want to feel heard and I'm telling you this again so maybe you can understand the depth and the degree and the damage that they did to me back then.

I want changes and I want changes going forward. I deserve changes. I was told I have to sit down and be evaluated — again — if I want to end the conservatorship. Ma'am, I didn't know I could petition the conservatorship to end it. I'm sorry for my ignorance, but I honestly didn't know that. But honestly, which I don't think I owe anyone to be evaluated. I've done more than enough. I don't feel like I should even be in a room with anyone to offend me by trying to question my capacity of intelligence, whether I need to be in this stupid conservatorship or not. I've done more than enough. I don't owe these people anything. Especially me, the one that is roofed and fed tons of people on tour on the road. It's embarrassing and demoralizing what I've been through. And that's the main reason I've never said it openly. And mainly I didn't want to say it openly because I honestly don't think anyone would believe me. To be honest with you, the Paris Hilton story on what they did to her, at that school, I didn't believe any of it. I'm sorry, I'm an outsider. And I'll just be honest, I didn't believe it. And maybe I'm wrong. And that's why I didn't want to say any of this to anybody, to the public, because people would make fun of me or laugh at me and say, "She's lying. She's got everything. She's Britney Spears." I'm not lying. I just want my life back. And it's been 13 years and it's enough.

It's been a long time since I've owned my money and it's my wish and my dream for all of this to end without being tested. Again, it makes no sense whatsoever for the state of California to sit back and literally watch me with their own two eyes, make a living for so many people and pay so many people — trucks and buses on tour on the road with me — and be told I'm not good enough. But I'm great at what I do. And I allow these people to control what I do, ma'am, and it's enough, it makes no sense at all. Now, going forward, I'm not willing to meet or see anyone. I've met with enough people against my will. I'm done. All I want is to own my money, for this to end, and my boyfriend to drive me in his f***ing car. And I would honestly like to sue my family, to be totally honest with you.

I also would like to be able to share my story with the world and what they did to me instead of it being a hush hush secret to benefit all of them. I want to be able to be heard on what they did to me by making me keep this in for so long is not good for my heart. I've been so angry and I cry every day. It concerns me I'm told I'm not allowed to expose the people who did this to me. For my sanity, I need you to the judge to approve me to do an interview where I can be heard and what they did to me. And actually, I have the right to use my voice and take up for myself. My attorney says I can't. It's not good. I can't let the public know anything they did to me. And by not saying anything is saying it's OK. I don't know what I said here. It's not OK. I would actually — I don't want to interview. I'd much rather just have an open call to you for the press to hear, which I didn't know today we're doing, so thank you.

Instead of having an interview, honestly, I need that to get it off my heart. The anger and all of it. That — that — that's — that's been happening. It's not fair they're telling me lies about me openly. Even my family. They do interviews to anyone they want on news stations, my own family doing interviews and talking about the situation and making me feel so stupid. And I can't say one thing. And my own people say I can't say anything. It's been two years. I want a recorded call to you — actually, we're doing this now, which I didn't know that we were doing this — until the public knows what they did me. I told my — I know my lawyer Sam has been very scared for me to go forward because he's saying if I speak up, I'm being overworked in that facility, that rehab place that the rehab place will see me. He told me I should keep it to myself. I would personally like to — actually, I know I've had grown with a personal relationship with Sam, my lawyer. I've been talking to him like three times a week now. We've kind of built a relationship, but I haven't really had the opportunity by my own self to actually handpick my own lawyer by myself. And I would like to be able to do that.

I would like to also — the main reason why I'm here is because I want to end the conservatorship without having to be evaluated. I've done a lot of research, ma'am, and there is a lot of judges who do end conservatorships for people without them having to be evaluated all the time. The only times they don't is if a concerned family member says something's wrong with this person and consider an other — otherwise. And considering my family has lived off of my conservatorship for 13 years, I won't be surprised if one of them has has something to say. Go forward and say, "We don't think this should end. We have to help her." Especially if I get my fair serve and turn in exposing what they did to me. Also I want to speak to you about at the moment my obligations, which I personally don't think at the very moment, I owe anybody anything.

I have three meetings a week I have to attend no matter what. I just don't like feeling like I work for the people whom I pay. I don't like being told I have to, no matter what, even if I'm sick, Jodi, the conservator says I have to see my Coach Ken even when I'm sick. I would like to do one meeting a week with a therapist. I've never in — before — even before they sent me to that place, had two therapy sessions. A therapy, one, a therapy session and one therapy session with my — I have a doctor and then a therapy person. What I've been forced to do illegal in my life, I shouldn't be told I have to be available three times a week to these people I don't know.

I'm talking to you today because I feel again, yes, even Jodi is starting to kind of take it too far with me. They have me going to therapy twice a week and a psychiatrist. I've never in the past had — they had me going yeah, twice a week and my doctor goal. So that's three times a week. I've never in the past went to see a therapist more than once a week. It takes too much out of me going to this man I don't know. Number one, I'm scared of people. I don't trust people with what I've been through. And the clever set up of being in what's like, one of the most exposed places in Westlake, which today — yesterday paparazzi showed me coming out of the place, literally crying in there. It's embarrassing and it's demoralizing. I deserve privacy when I go. I deserve privacy when I go and have therapy either at my home, like I've done for eight years — they've always come to my home — or when the Dr. Benson, the guy — the man that died — I went to a place similar to what I went to in Westlake, which was very exposed and really bad. OK, so wait, where was I? It was like, it was identical to Dr. Benson who died. The one who illegally — yes, 100% — abused me by the treatment he gave me to. And to be totally honest with you, I was so —

Penny: Ms. Spears, excuse me for interrupting you. But my reporter says if you could just slow down a little bit because she's trying to make sure she gets everything that you're saying.

Spears: OK, cool.

Penny: And so if you just —.

Spears: OK.

Penny: So that would be great.

Spears: I have been through — and the clever set up in Westlake is identical to Dr. Benson who died, the one who illegally — yes, 100% — abused me by the treatment he gave me. And to be totally honest with you, when he passed away, I got on my knees and thanked God. In other words, my team is pushing — pushing it with me again. I have trapped phobias being in small rooms because the trauma locked me up for four months in that place is not OK for them to send me — sorry, I'm going fast — to that small room like that twice a week with another new therapist I pay that I never even approved. I don't like it. I don't want to do that. And I haven't done anything wrong to deserve this treatment. It's not OK to force me to do anything I don't want to do. By law — by law, Jodi and this so-called team should honestly — I should be able to sue them for threatening me and saying if I don't go and do these meetings twice a week, we — we can't let you have your money and go to Maui on your vacations. You have to do what you're told for this program and then you will be able to go.

But it was very clever. They picked one of the most exposed places in Westlake knowing I have the hot topic of the conservatorship, that over five paparazzi are going to show up and get me crying coming out of that place. I begged them to make sure that they did this at my home so I would have privacy. I deserve privacy. The whole conservatorship from the beginning — once — the conservatorship — the conservatorship from the beginning, once you see someone, whoever it is in the conservatorship, making money, making them money and myself money and working, that whole, that whole statement right there, the conservatorship should end. There should be no — I shouldn't be in a conservatorship if I can work and provide money and work for myself and pay other people. It makes no sense. The laws need to change. What state allows people to own another person's money and account and threaten them and saying, "You can't spend your money unless you do what we want you to do." And I'm paying them.

Ma'am, I've worked since I was 17 years old. You have to understand how thin that is for me. Every morning I get up to know, I can't go on somewhere unless I meet people I don't know every week in an office identical to the one where the therapist was very abusive to me. I truly believe this conservatorship is abusive. And now we can sit here all day and say, "Oh, conservatorships are here to help people." But ma'am, there's a thousand conservatorships that are abusive as well. I don't feel like I can live a full life. I don't — I don't owe them to go see a man I don't know and share him my problems. I don't even believe in therapy. I always think you take it to God.

I want to end the conservatorship without being evaluated. In the meantime, I want this therapist once a week. He can either come to my home — no, I just want him to come to my home. I'm not willing to go to Westlake and be embarrassed by all these paparazzi, these scummy paparazzi laughing at my faces while I'm crying, coming out and taking my pictures as all these white, nice dinners where people drinking wine at restaurants, watching me from these places.

They set me up by sending me to the most exposed places, places. And I told them I didn't want to go there because I knew paparazzi would show up there. They only gave me two options for therapist, and I'm not sure how you make your decisions, ma'am, but this is the only chance for me to talk to you for a while. I need your your help. So if you can just kind of let me know where your head is, I don't really honestly know what to say, but my requests just are to end the conservatorship without being evaluated. I want to petition, basically, to end the conservatorship, but I want to — I want it to be petitioned. And if I don't want to be evaluated, to be sat in a room with people for hours a day like they did me before, and they made it even worse for me after that happened.

So I just — I'm honestly new at this and I'm doing research on all these things. I do know common sense and the method that things can end, it — for people, it has ended without them being evaluated. So I just want you to take that into consider — consideration. I've also done research and wait — also took a year during COVID to get me any self-care methods during COVID. She said there were no services available. She's lying, ma'am. My mom went to the spa twice in Louisiana during COVID. For a year, I didn't have my nails done. No hair styling and no massages, no acupuncture, nothing. For a year. I saw the maids in my home each week with their nails done different each time. She made me feel like my dad does — very similar, her behavior. And my dad, but just a different dynamic. Team wants me to work and stay home instead of having longer vacations. They — they are used to me sort of doing a weekly routine for them and I'm over it. I don't feel like I owe them anything at this point. They need to be reminded they actually work for me. They trick me by sending me to the — OK, I repeated myself there. OK.

Also, I was supposed to be able to have a friend that I used to do AA meetings with. I did AA for two years, I have like, you know — I did three meetings a week and met a bunch of women there. And I'm not able to see my friends that live eight minutes away from me, which I find extremely strange. I feel like they're making me feel like I live in a rehab program. This is my home. I'd like for my boyfriend to be able to drive me in his car. And I want to meet with the therapist once a week, not twice a week. And I want him to come to my home because I actually know I do need a little therapy.

I was told, hold on — I think that's — oh, and I would like to progressively move forward and I want to have the real deal. I want to be able to get married and have a baby. I was told right now in the conservatorship, I'm not able to get married or have a baby. I have an IUD inside of myself right now, so I don't get pregnant. I wanted to take the IUD out so I could start trying to have another baby. But this so-called team won't let me go to the doctor to take it out because they they don't want me to have children — any more children.

So basically this conservatorship is doing me way more harm than good. I — I deserve to have a life. I've worked my whole life. I deserve to have a two- to three-year break and just, you know, do what I want to do. But I do feel like there is a crutch here and I feel like I feel open and I'm OK to talk to you today about it. But I — I wish I could stay with you on the phone forever, because when I get off the phone with you, all of a sudden all I hear — I hear all these no's. No, no, no. And then all of a sudden I get — I feel ganged up on and I feel bullied and I feel left out and alone. And I'm tired of feeling alone. I deserve to have the same rights as anybody does by having a child, a family, any of those things. And more so. And that's all I wanted to say to you. And thank you so much for letting me speak to you today.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court; Credit: Jose Luis Magana/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to lift a ban on evictions for tenants who have failed to pay all or some rent during the coronavirus pandemic.

By a 5-to-4 vote, the court left in place the nationwide moratorium on evictions put in place by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and which was challenged by the Alabama Association of Realtors.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who cast the fifth and deciding vote, wrote in a concurring opinion that he voted not to end the eviction program only because it is set to expire on July 31, "and because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution" of the funds that Congress appropriated to provide rental assistance to those in need because of the pandemic. He added, however, that in his view Congress would have to pass new and clearer legislation to extend the moratorium past July 31.

The Biden administration has said it does not plan to extend the moratorium any further.

Also voting to leave the program intact until July 31 were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Dissenting were Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. They would have blocked the moratorium from continuing for another month.

The decision comes at a time when roughly 7 million American households say they are still behind on their rent. Many suffered job loss during the pandemic. And delays have stopped more than $46 billion in congressionally approved rental assistance from reaching many people facing eviction who need it.

Housing groups have been warning that pulling the CDC eviction protections away from people before that congressional aid can reach them would spark a wave of evictions that could otherwise be avoided.

Evictions often send families into a downward financial spiral. It can be very hard to find another place to live with an eviction on your record. People can end up living in their cars, motels when they can afford it or in homeless shelters. Research has found there's also a disparate impact on people of color.

During the pandemic, public health experts have warned — and research showed — that evictions result in more coronavirus cases because people end up living in more crowded situations, where they are more likely to catch or spread the disease.

At the outset of the pandemic, Congress adopted a limited, temporary moratorium on evictions. After Congress' moratorium lapsed last July, however, then-President Donald Trump asked the CDC to step in and issue a new eviction ban, which it did in September. In March, President Biden extended that ban, which was to expire at the end of June. Then on June 24, the Biden administration notified the Supreme Court that it had extended the moratorium until July 31. It also said that barring a rise in coronavirus cases, the "CDC does not plan to extend the Order further."

Landlords have long argued that the CDC order was an overreach and that the agency doesn't have the power to, in effect, take control over their own properties away from them.

A group of the nation's landlords challenged the eviction ban and on May 5, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that the CDC has exceeded its authority. The judge, however, blocked her own decision from going into effect to give the government time to appeal. On June 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the stay, prompting the landlords to go to the Supreme Court.

Keeping the status quo in place "will prolong the severe financial burdens borne by landlords under the moratorium for the past nine months," the property owners said.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Pro-Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol following a rally with then-President Donald Trump on Jan. 6.; Credit: Samuel Corum/Getty Images

An alleged member of the Oath Keepers has pleaded guilty to charges connected to the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol and agreed to cooperate with the government in its conspiracy case against the extremist group.

Mark Grods entered a plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy and one count of obstruction of an official proceeding. According to the statement of offense, the conspiracy's aim was to stop Congress' certification of the Electoral College count.

The plea marks another step forward for prosecutors pursuing a broader conspiracy case against 16 alleged members or associates of the Oath Keepers, a far-right, anti-government group. Last week, one of the defendants in that case pleaded guilty to conspiracy and obstruction, and agreed to cooperate with investigators.

Grods, who was charged separately but admitted to having coordinated with members of the Oath Keepers, has also agreed to cooperate with the government, including testifying before a grand jury or at trial.

In a court filing, prosecutors said Grods' case "is part of an ongoing grand jury investigation and plea negotiation related to United States v. Thomas Caldwell, et al.," which is the government's Oath Keepers conspiracy case.

At a court hearing Wednesday in Washington, D.C., just blocks from the Capitol, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta went over the charges and the terms of Grods' plea deal, and told him his estimated sentencing guidelines range was 51 to 63 months.

"How do you plead on count one, the charge of conspiracy, sir?" Mehta asked.

"Guilty," Grods said.

"Count two, obstruction of an official proceeding, how do you plead, sir?" Mehta asked.

"Guilty," Grods replied again.

In his statement of offense, Grods admits to bringing firearms to Washington, D.C., and then stashing them across the Potomac River at a Virginia hotel — a detail the government says buttresses its argument that the Oath Keepers prepared for violence on Jan. 6.

The government alleges the group planned to store weapons in Virginia and ferry them into Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 if the situation in the city got messy.

Grods' statement of offense says on Jan. 6, he rode in a golf cart with others through the city before parking a few blocks away from the Capitol and walking the rest of the way. He then linked up with other alleged Oath Keepers, who forged their way through the crowd, up the steps of the Capitol in a military-style "stack" formation and into the building itself.

Other members of the "stack" have been charged in the Oath Keepers conspiracy case.

Four minutes after entering the Capitol, the statement of offense says, Grods left the building as police shot pepper balls at a wall near him.

Two days after the assault on the Capitol, an unnamed individual told Grods to "make sure that all signal comms about the op has been deleted and burned," according to the statement of offense, which Grods confirmed he had done.

It is unclear how much additional information Grods will be able to provide investigators, but his plea agreement — the second in the span of a week — may prompt other defendants in the case to cut deals with prosecutors as well.

Overall, charges have now been brought against more than 500 individuals related to the riot at the Capitol.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

After issuing its final decisions of the term Thursday, the Supreme Court on Friday granted a religious liberty case for next term and turned away challenges to longstanding decisions on qualified immunity and defamation, prompting dissents from the court's conservatives.

Court agrees to hear one religious liberty case, but rejects another

The justices agreed to consider a constitutional challenge to a school funding program in Maine that excludes private schools that teach religion.

Only half the school districts in Maine run their own high schools. The rest pay for students to attend public schools in other districts or to attend private schools. The state, however, will not fund students who attend any school that offers religious teaching.

Parents who wanted to send their children to a private Christian school challenged the law, alleging it violated their right to exercise their religion freely. The First Circuit disagreed, but now the high court will hear their case.

The justices, however, declined to hear another case about religious liberty – this one brought by a Washington state florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. She alleged that the state's antidiscrimination law violated her First Amendment rights, and in 2017, Washington's supreme court ruled against her.

Though the justices on Friday declined to hear her appeal, three of the court's conservatives—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch—would have taken it for next term.

Thomas calls to do away with qualified immunity

Also on Friday, Justice Thomas once again called for the court to do away with qualified immunity, the legal shield for police officers that has come under intense scrutiny in the last year of racial justice protests.

Thomas was dissenting from the court's refusal to hear the case of a college student promoting Turning Point USA, a right-wing organization known for publishing lists of university professors it deems hostile to conservatives. The student alleged campus police at Arkansas State University violated her First Amendment rights when they stopped her from advertising the organization near the student union. But the campus officers escaped liability in the lower court because of qualified immunity, a doctrine created by the Supreme Court in 1967 that has evolved into a near-impenetrable bulwark for the police.

"Why should university officers," wrote Thomas, "receive the same protection as a police officer who makes a split-second decision to use force in a dangerous setting?" Going further, Thomas questioned whether the judicially-created doctrine should exist at all, an opinion that has garnered more and more bipartisan consensus in the wake of George Floyd's murder.

Thomas and Gorsuch call to overturn landmark Free Speech precedent

The court declined to hear a defamation case brought by a Miami-born international arms dealer—portrayed in the 2016 movie War Dogs—against the author of a book about his life.

The lower court dismissed the suit. It pointed to a landmark 1964 First Amendment decision, in which the high court said that publishers are immune from libel suits brought by public figures, so long as the publishers either didn't know, or had no reason to know, that the information they published was false.

Both Thomas and Gorsuch dissented, arguing the court should overturn the nearly 50-year-old precedent. In the era of disinformation, "lies impose real harm," wrote Thomas. "Instead of continuing to insulate those who perpetrate lies," said Thomas, the court should narrow First Amendment protections.

In a separate dissent, Gorsuch agreed. In 1964, publishers needed protection against libel for unpopular opinions to survive. Indeed, the court's 1964 decision was first used to protect civil rights leaders who had published a New York Times ad criticizing the Montgomery, Alabama police for repeatedly arresting Martin Luther King Jr.

But, said Gorsuch, in 2021, "it's less obvious what force [libel protections have] in a world in which everyone carries a soapbox in their hands," referring to smartphones. Now, Gorsuch wrote, "the deck seems stacked against those with traditional (and expensive) journalistic standards—and in favor of those who can disseminate the most sensational information as efficiently as possible without any particular concern for truth."

Another execution

On top of its decisions about cases next term, the justices gave Alabama the green light to execute Matthew Reeves, whose death sentence was recently overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is the second time the justices have ruled against Reeves, who in 1998 was convicted for murder in Alabama. In 2002, Reeves first challenged his sentence in state court. He argued that because of his low IQ, his lawyer should have hired an expert to evaluate him for an intellectual disability. After 15 years of appeals, the Supreme Court denied his claim in 2017. So Reeves appealed his claim through the federal system.

But on Friday, the high court again rejected his challenge, thus allowing Alabama to move forward with his execution. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, dissented, criticizing the state court for its brusque dismissal of Reeves's claim.

Sotomayor drew attention to "a troubling trend in which this court strains to reverse summarily any grants of relief to those facing execution." The court, wrote Sotomayor, "turns deference" to state courts "into a rule that...relief is never available to those facing execution."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Cancer-causing chemicals that occur naturally in foods are far more numerous in the human diet than synthetic carcinogens, yet both types are consumed at levels so low that they currently appear to pose little threat to human health, a committee of the National Research Council said in a report released today.

More targeted aircraft testing and simulation should be conducted to uncover design characteristics in new flight control systems that -- in rare circumstances -- may mislead pilots and result in unstable or dangerous flight conditions, says a new report by a National Research Council committee.

A series of secret tests conducted by the U.S. Army in the 1950s and 1960s did not expose residents of the United States and Canada to chemical levels considered harmful, according to a new report from a committee of the National Research Council.

Immigration benefits the U.S. economy overall and has little negative effect on the income and job opportunities of most native-born Americans, says a new report by a panel of the National Research Council.

Smokers who are exposed to radon appear to be at even greater risk for lung cancer, because the effects of smoking and radon are more powerful when the two factors are combined, says a new report by a committee of the National Research Council.

The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy.

Bacteria that resist antibiotics can be passed from food animals to humans, but not enough is known to determine the public health risks posed by such transmission, says a new report by a committee of the National Research Council.

Radon in household water supplies increases peoples overall exposure to the gas, but waterborne radon poses few risks to human health, says a new report by a committee of the National Research Council.

Marijuanas active components are potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting, and other symptoms, and should be tested rigorously in clinical trials.

The explosive growth of information technology is having a profound impact on our lives.

Incineration is widely used in the United States to reduce the volume of waste. Hundreds of incinerators -- including industrial kilns, boilers, and furnaces -- combust municipal and hazardous waste, while many more are used to burn medical waste.

The federal government should not increase the maximum level of copper allowed in drinking water, because higher levels could lead to liver poisoning in infants and children with certain genetic disorders.

Insufficient evidence exists to support claims that taking megadoses of dietary antioxidants, such as selenium and vitamins C and E, or carotenoids, including beta-carotene, can prevent chronic diseases, says the latest report on Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

Although the federal program that sets fuel economy standards for cars and light-duty trucks has helped reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil and lower emissions of greenhouse gases, changes to the program could further cut the nations petroleum dependence and provide more flexibility to carmakers.

Representatives from academies and research organizations around the world sent messages of condolence and support to members, officials and staff of the U.S. National Academies in the wake of terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The following are excerpts from some of these messages.

Racial and ethnic minorities tend to receive lower-quality health care than whites do, even when insurance status, income, age, and severity of conditions are comparable.

Scientific evidence is insufficient to prove or disprove the theory that exposure to polio vaccine contaminated with a monkey virus between 1955 and 1963 has triggered cancer in humans, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

Good morning. I am Richard Bonnie, chair of the Committee on Developing a Strategy to Reduce and Prevent Underage Drinking.

Welcome to the public release of the latest Institute of Medicine report on the quality of health care in America.

To significantly reduce the tens of thousands of deaths and injuries caused by medical errors every year, health care organizations must adopt information technology systems that are capable of collecting and sharing essential health information on patients and their care, says a new report by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

Based on a thorough review of clinical and epidemiological studies, neither the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal nor the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine are associated with autism, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

The role of guns in U.S. society is a subject of intense policy debate and disagreement.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys standard for the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water -- 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water -- does not protect against adverse health effects.

Use of protective face coverings will be one of many strategies used to slow or prevent transmission of the flu virus in the event of a pandemic, even though scientific evidence about the effectiveness of inexpensive, disposable medical masks and respirators against influenza is limited.

There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other proxies of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council.

The high rate of premature births in the United States constitutes a public health concern that costs society at least $26 billion a year, according to a new report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

Medication errors are among the most common medical errors, harming at least 1.5 million people every year, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

The search for life elsewhere in the solar system and beyond should include efforts to detect what scientists sometimes refer to as weird life -- that is, life with an alternative biochemistry to that of life on Earth -- says a new report from the National Research Council.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Institute of Medicine (IOM) today released SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM, a book designed to give the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom.

Short-term exposure to current levels of ozone in many areas is likely to contribute to premature deaths, says a new National Research Council report, which adds that the evidence is strong enough that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should include ozone-related mortality in health-benefit analyses related to future ozone standards.

Evidence exists that people who lived or worked at Camp Lejeune Marine Base in North Carolina between the 1950s and 1985 were exposed to the industrial solvents tricholorethylene (TCE) or perchloroethylene (PCE) in their water supply, but strong scientific evidence is not available to determine whether health problems among those exposed are due to the contaminants, says a new report from the National Research Council.

A new report from the National Research Council examines and, when possible, estimates hidden costs of energy production and use.

A new report from the National Research Council lays out options NASA could follow to detect more near-Earth objects (NEOs) – asteroids and comets that could pose a hazard if they cross Earths orbit.

The numerous technical and operational breakdowns that contributed to the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and spill from the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico suggest the lack of a suitable approach for managing the inherent risks.

Despite being used for several decades, test-based incentives have not consistently generated positive effects on student achievement, says a new report from the National Research Council.

A new report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends that eight preventive health services for women be added to the services that health plans will cover at no cost to patients under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA).

Insufficient data on service members exposures to emissions from open-air burn pits for trash on military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan is one of the reasons why it is not possible to say whether these emissions could cause long-term health effects, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine.