McALLEN, Texas (AP) — Texas'&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-texas-2edc0f202156bf792cd531e814bbf2f5">plans to arrest migrants</a>&nbsp;suspected of entering the U.S. illegally were again on hold Wednesday after setting off uncertainty along the border and anger from Mexico flared during a brief few hours that the law was allowed to take effect.

A&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-migrant-arrests-texas-13ffaed316d16f42e928f6958f0658f2">late-night order Tuesday</a>&nbsp;from a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel temporarily put on hold — again — Texas' dramatic state expansion into border enforcement. Earlier in the day, the U.S. Supreme Court had cleared the way for the strict immigration law, dealing a victory to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/greg-abbott">Republican Gov. Greg Abbott</a>&nbsp;and encouraging GOP lawmakers in other states that are pushing for similar measures.

But later in a 2-1 order, an appeals court panel continued the legal seesaw surrounding the Texas law, again putting it on pause ahead of oral arguments that were scheduled for Wednesday. It was not clear how quickly the next decision might come.

During the short time the law was in effect Tuesday, Texas authorities did not announce that any arrests had been made or say whether it was being actively enforced. Along the border in Kinney County, Sheriff Brad Coe embraced the arrest powers but said deputies would need probable cause.

“It is unlikely that observers will see an overnight change,” said Coe, whose county covers a stretch of border near Del Rio that until recently had been the busiest corridor for illegal crossings but has quieted considerably.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the law. It instead kicked back to the lower appeals court a challenge led by the Justice Department, which has argued that Texas is overstepping the federal government's immigration authority.

The latest appeals court order included no explanation from the panel. But it had the effect of restoring an injunction&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-migrant-arrests-court-ruling-3bcded91620cbd9686575caa6bcac203">issued in February</a>&nbsp;by U.S. District Judge David Ezra, who rebuked the law on multiple fronts. His 114-page opinion brushed off Republicans' claims of an “invasion” along the southern border due to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-crossings-mexico-biden-18ac91ef502e0c5433f74de6cc629b32">record-high</a>&nbsp;illegal crossings. Ezra, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, also warned that the law could hamper U.S. foreign relations.

Under the Texas law, once defendants are in custody on illegal entry charges, they can agree to a judge's order to leave the U.S. or face prosecution. On Tuesday, Mexico’s Foreign Affairs Secretary said in a sharply worded statement that it would refuse to take anyone back who is ordered to cross the border.

“Mexico reiterates the legitimate right to protect the rights of its nationals in the United States and to determine its own policies regarding entry into its territory,” the government said.

The impact extends far beyond the Texas border. Republican legislators wrote the law so that it applies in all of the state’s 254 counties, although Steve McCraw, the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, has said he expects it will mostly be enforced near the border.

Other GOP-led states are already looking to follow Texas’ path. In Iowa, the state House on Tuesday gave final approval to a bill that would also give its state law enforcement the power to arrest people who are in the U.S. illegally and have previously been denied entry into the country.

It now goes to Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds. If signed, it would take effect in July.

“The federal government has abdicated its responsibilities and states can and must act,” Republican Iowa state Rep. Steven Holt said.

In Texas, El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego, the top county executive, said immigration enforcement should remain a federal, not state, responsibility, echoing the Biden administration's view. He said heightened law enforcement presence in the city of El Paso during a previous migrant surge brought high-speed chases and traffic stops based on assumptions that passengers were in the country illegally.

“We had accidents, we had injuries, we got a little glimpse of what would happen if the state begins to control what happens in respect to immigration,” Samaniego said.

Skylor Hearn, executive director of the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas, said sheriffs' offices have been training since last year.

“If a county chooses to take it on themselves, they are choosing for their taxpayers to take it on themselves as well,” Hearn said. “As long as the federal government is willing to do its part that it is supposed to be doing, it is ideal for them to take possession and custody of these people."

Daniel Morales, an associate professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center, said the Texas law "will be a mess, very clearly, to enforce.”

“It’s very clear that Greg Abbott wants to enforce the law so he can get lots of photo ops and opportunities, but it’s gonna take a lot of state resources to implement. And I don’t know, in fact, how much appetite and capacity for that the state government actually has,” Morales said. Texas will find enforcement is “difficult and taxing,” he said.

Arrests for illegal crossings&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-security-migrants-homeland-security-1c6e9f612dff721191c0254f980947a5">fell by half in January</a>&nbsp;from a record-high of 250,000 in December, with sharp declines in Texas. Arrests in the Border Patrol's Del Rio sector, the focus of Abbott's enforcement, fell 76% from December. Rio Grande Valley, the busiest corridor for illegal crossings for much of the last decade, recorded its fewest arrests since June 2020.

Tucson, Arizona, has been the busiest corridor in recent months, followed by San Diego in January, but reasons for sudden shifts are often complicated and are dictated by smuggling organizations.

When President Joe Biden visited the Rio Grande Valley for&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/border-immigration-biden-trump-42c945d02742b169bde40601a27fde02">his second trip to the border</a>&nbsp;as president last month, administration officials credited Mexico for heightened enforcement on that part of the border for the drop in arrests. They said conditions were more challenging for Mexican law enforcement in Sonora, the state that lies south of Arizona.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/12/1671577993523.png" alt="Photo courtesy Rep. Tony Gonzales" />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy Rep. Tony Gonzales</figcaption>
 </figure>McALLEN, Texas (AP) — Texas'&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-texas-2edc0f202156bf792cd531e814bbf2f5">plans to arrest migrants</a>&nbsp;suspected of entering the U.S. illegally were again on hold Wednesday after setting off uncertainty along the border and anger from Mexico flared during a brief few hours that the law was allowed to take effect.A&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-migrant-arrests-texas-13ffaed316d16f42e928f6958f0658f2">late-night order Tuesday</a>&nbsp;from a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel temporarily put on hold — again — Texas' dramatic state expansion into border enforcement. Earlier in the day, the U.S. Supreme Court had cleared the way for the strict immigration law, dealing a victory to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/greg-abbott">Republican Gov. Greg Abbott</a>&nbsp;and encouraging GOP lawmakers in other states that are pushing for similar measures.But later in a 2-1 order, an appeals court panel continued the legal seesaw surrounding the Texas law, again putting it on pause ahead of oral arguments that were scheduled for Wednesday. It was not clear how quickly the next decision might come.During the short time the law was in effect Tuesday, Texas authorities did not announce that any arrests had been made or say whether it was being actively enforced. Along the border in Kinney County, Sheriff Brad Coe embraced the arrest powers but said deputies would need probable cause.“It is unlikely that observers will see an overnight change,” said Coe, whose county covers a stretch of border near Del Rio that until recently had been the busiest corridor for illegal crossings but has quieted considerably.The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the law. It instead kicked back to the lower appeals court a challenge led by the Justice Department, which has argued that Texas is overstepping the federal government's immigration authority.The latest appeals court order included no explanation from the panel. But it had the effect of restoring an injunction&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-migrant-arrests-court-ruling-3bcded91620cbd9686575caa6bcac203">issued in February</a>&nbsp;by U.S. District Judge David Ezra, who rebuked the law on multiple fronts. His 114-page opinion brushed off Republicans' claims of an “invasion” along the southern border due to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-crossings-mexico-biden-18ac91ef502e0c5433f74de6cc629b32">record-high</a>&nbsp;illegal crossings. Ezra, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, also warned that the law could hamper U.S. foreign relations.Under the Texas law, once defendants are in custody on illegal entry charges, they can agree to a judge's order to leave the U.S. or face prosecution. On Tuesday, Mexico’s Foreign Affairs Secretary said in a sharply worded statement that it would refuse to take anyone back who is ordered to cross the border.“Mexico reiterates the legitimate right to protect the rights of its nationals in the United States and to determine its own policies regarding entry into its territory,” the government said.The impact extends far beyond the Texas border. Republican legislators wrote the law so that it applies in all of the state’s 254 counties, although Steve McCraw, the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, has said he expects it will mostly be enforced near the border.Other GOP-led states are already looking to follow Texas’ path. In Iowa, the state House on Tuesday gave final approval to a bill that would also give its state law enforcement the power to arrest people who are in the U.S. illegally and have previously been denied entry into the country.It now goes to Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds. If signed, it would take effect in July.“The federal government has abdicated its responsibilities and states can and must act,” Republican Iowa state Rep. Steven Holt said.In Texas, El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego, the top county executive, said immigration enforcement should remain a federal, not state, responsibility, echoing the Biden administration's view. He said heightened law enforcement presence in the city of El Paso during a previous migrant surge brought high-speed chases and traffic stops based on assumptions that passengers were in the country illegally.“We had accidents, we had injuries, we got a little glimpse of what would happen if the state begins to control what happens in respect to immigration,” Samaniego said.Skylor Hearn, executive director of the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas, said sheriffs' offices have been training since last year.“If a county chooses to take it on themselves, they are choosing for their taxpayers to take it on themselves as well,” Hearn said. “As long as the federal government is willing to do its part that it is supposed to be doing, it is ideal for them to take possession and custody of these people."Daniel Morales, an associate professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center, said the Texas law "will be a mess, very clearly, to enforce.”“It’s very clear that Greg Abbott wants to enforce the law so he can get lots of photo ops and opportunities, but it’s gonna take a lot of state resources to implement. And I don’t know, in fact, how much appetite and capacity for that the state government actually has,” Morales said. Texas will find enforcement is “difficult and taxing,” he said.Arrests for illegal crossings&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-security-migrants-homeland-security-1c6e9f612dff721191c0254f980947a5">fell by half in January</a>&nbsp;from a record-high of 250,000 in December, with sharp declines in Texas. Arrests in the Border Patrol's Del Rio sector, the focus of Abbott's enforcement, fell 76% from December. Rio Grande Valley, the busiest corridor for illegal crossings for much of the last decade, recorded its fewest arrests since June 2020.Tucson, Arizona, has been the busiest corridor in recent months, followed by San Diego in January, but reasons for sudden shifts are often complicated and are dictated by smuggling organizations.When President Joe Biden visited the Rio Grande Valley for&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/border-immigration-biden-trump-42c945d02742b169bde40601a27fde02">his second trip to the border</a>&nbsp;as president last month, administration officials credited Mexico for heightened enforcement on that part of the border for the drop in arrests. They said conditions were more challenging for Mexican law enforcement in Sonora, the state that lies south of Arizona.___

Texas' illegal migrant arrest law back on hold after Appeals Court ruling

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/03/19/nebraska-lawmakers-speaker-of-legislature-condemn-hurtful-speech-about-violent-rape/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — Turmoil over comments made Monday night by a state senator — in which he described a violent rape while interjecting names of fellow senators — spilled over into the beginning of Tuesday morning’s session of the Nebraska Legislature.

Several lawmakers, including two conservative colleagues, called out State Sen. Steve Halloran for what they described as “inappropriate” and “hurtful” comments Monday night in which he read from a book describing a violent rape and repeatedly inserted the name “Senator Cavanaugh” amid the reading.

“We’ve got to be careful with each other. We are all human beings who deserve respect. We do not deserve aggression,” said Omaha Sen. Wendy DeBoer.

Dunbar Sen. Julie Slama, who has been open about being a victim of sexual violence, said it was wrong that the Nebraska Legislature doesn’t have policies — as in private businesses — to punish someone for saying something so inappropriate. She brought up an incident five years ago when then-Sen. Ernie Chambers implied that “favors of the flesh” led to her appointment to the Legislature.

“It’s the one place where you can stand up and talk about raping a colleague and not have any consequences,” Slama said. “Senator Halloran, you should be ashamed of yourself.”

The comment was greeted with some applause from the &nbsp;gallery and from observers who were behind the glass wall at the back of the legislative chambers.

Halloran, when he rose to speak, apologized — not for reading the graphic description of a violent rape, but for “interjecting” a senator’s name while reading from the book, “Lucky,” which he said was required reading in some schools.

The Hastings senator, who is term limited from running for a third term this year, rejected the idea that he was “trivializing rape” by reading a “very ugly” section of the book.

“Should I have interjected a senator’s name? No,” Halloran said.&nbsp;

But he insisted, as he did Monday night, that his reference to “Senator Cavanaugh” was to State Sen. John Cavanaugh, the brother of Omaha Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh. Halloran said he also referenced Lincoln Sen. George Dungan before beginning his reading.

“Once the transcribers have transcribed what I read, I think you’ll notice that I first referenced them,” he said.

Other senators rejected that explanation and also said it didn’t matter who exactly he was referencing. They said that Halloran’s words worked to traumatize victims of rape who are in the Legislature or were watching the Monday night session.

Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh also said that Halloran, prior to speaking on the mic last night, came up to her and fellow Sen. Lynne Walz and began describing the rape scene from the book.

Omaha Sen. Brad Von Gillern said two members of his family have been victims of sexual violence, and he said the reading from the book — which continually mentioned the name “Brad” — served to revive memories of those nightmares.

&nbsp;“Maybe it’s PTSD … when you hear a story that brings back personal memories, hard memories, it doesn’t matter what gender you are,” von Gillern said, his voice cracking.

He added that he taught his children never to use the word “but” when giving an apology because it makes it conditional. It was a reference to Halloran’s apology.

Halloran said he called out senators’ names because they weren’t paying attention to the debate Monday night — the first night session of the session — on a bill related to obscenity that was being debated on the floor.

“I wanted them to hear what was in the book and what was being required,” Halloran said. “If you read the transcript it’s like a how to lesson on how to rape.”

About a dozen people showed up to protest Halloran at his office early Tuesday. State Sens. Robert Dover of Norfolk and Kathleen Kauth of Omaha talked with them, as did State Sen. John Lowe of Kearney.

Dover said felt as though everyone needed to settle down.

“We need to have decorum,” Dover said. “We can disagree to disagree, but we need to not attack each other.”

Kauth was not present during Halloran’s speech, so protesters played the audio for her. She focused on the book Halloran read from.

“So you think this should be available for kids?” Kauth asked. Protesters said the book passage should not have been read aloud at all.&nbsp;

Halloran, as well as those calling for his resignation, have freedom of speech, Kauth said.

The group confronted Halloran after he arrived and met with Speaker John Arch in the speaker’s office. One protester yelled at Halloran, “You’re a rapist through your words.”

The speaker of the Legislature, La Vista Sen. John Arch, began Tuesday morning’s floor debate with an apology for what was said last night.

He called on senators to not let it derail the rest of the legislative session, which has 14 more days in a 60-day session.

The Legislature, it was pointed out, could issue a letter of rebuke, pass a censure motion, or seek to expel a member, but none of those penalties was pursued Tuesday, despite talk of some punishment Monday night.

Lincoln Sen. Danielle Conrad — a former director of the ACLU of Nebraska — called on colleagues to “temper the toxicity” and to call out inappropriate comments, not seek punishment. She reminded senators that what’s said on the floor is protected free speech.

But other senators disagreed and said they were disappointed that some lawmakers were laughing about Halloran’s comments last night.

Sen. John Cavanaugh called Halloran’s comments political “grandstanding.”

“You sexualized the people you work with for some effect,” he said.

“What happened last night was not OK,” DeBoer said.

Slama said the comments would get someone fired if they were working at a private company.

“Those comments where wholly inappropriate,” she said, adding that the Legislature lacks policies that protect lawmakers from “predatory” colleagues.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/3/1710872347126.jpeg" alt=" State Sen. Steve Halloran of Hastings, left, meets with protesters outside the legislative chamber near Speaker John Arch’s office. March 19, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption> State Sen. Steve Halloran of Hastings, left, meets with protesters outside the legislative chamber near Speaker John Arch’s office. March 19, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Paul Hammel and Zach Wendling<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/03/19/nebraska-lawmakers-speaker-of-legislature-condemn-hurtful-speech-about-violent-rape/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN — Turmoil over comments made Monday night by a state senator — in which he described a violent rape while interjecting names of fellow senators — spilled over into the beginning of Tuesday morning’s session of the Nebraska Legislature.Several lawmakers, including two conservative colleagues, called out State Sen. Steve Halloran for what they described as “inappropriate” and “hurtful” comments Monday night in which he read from a book describing a violent rape and repeatedly inserted the name “Senator Cavanaugh” amid the reading.“We’ve got to be careful with each other. We are all human beings who deserve respect. We do not deserve aggression,” said Omaha Sen. Wendy DeBoer.Dunbar Sen. Julie Slama, who has been open about being a victim of sexual violence, said it was wrong that the Nebraska Legislature doesn’t have policies — as in private businesses — to punish someone for saying something so inappropriate. She brought up an incident five years ago when then-Sen. Ernie Chambers implied that “favors of the flesh” led to her appointment to the Legislature.<h2>‘Should be ashamed’</h2>“It’s the one place where you can stand up and talk about raping a colleague and not have any consequences,” Slama said. “Senator Halloran, you should be ashamed of yourself.”The comment was greeted with some applause from the &nbsp;gallery and from observers who were behind the glass wall at the back of the legislative chambers.Halloran, when he rose to speak, apologized — not for reading the graphic description of a violent rape, but for “interjecting” a senator’s name while reading from the book, “Lucky,” which he said was required reading in some schools.The Hastings senator, who is term limited from running for a third term this year, rejected the idea that he was “trivializing rape” by reading a “very ugly” section of the book.“Should I have interjected a senator’s name? No,” Halloran said.&nbsp;But he insisted, as he did Monday night, that his reference to “Senator Cavanaugh” was to State Sen. John Cavanaugh, the brother of Omaha Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh. Halloran said he also referenced Lincoln Sen. George Dungan before beginning his reading.“Once the transcribers have transcribed what I read, I think you’ll notice that I first referenced them,” he said.<h2>‘Maybe it’s PTSD …’</h2>Other senators rejected that explanation and also said it didn’t matter who exactly he was referencing. They said that Halloran’s words worked to traumatize victims of rape who are in the Legislature or were watching the Monday night session.Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh also said that Halloran, prior to speaking on the mic last night, came up to her and fellow Sen. Lynne Walz and began describing the rape scene from the book.Omaha Sen. Brad Von Gillern said two members of his family have been victims of sexual violence, and he said the reading from the book — which continually mentioned the name “Brad” — served to revive memories of those nightmares.&nbsp;“Maybe it’s PTSD … when you hear a story that brings back personal memories, hard memories, it doesn’t matter what gender you are,” von Gillern said, his voice cracking.He added that he taught his children never to use the word “but” when giving an apology because it makes it conditional. It was a reference to Halloran’s apology.Halloran said he called out senators’ names because they weren’t paying attention to the debate Monday night — the first night session of the session — on a bill related to obscenity that was being debated on the floor.<h2>‘Wanted them to hear’</h2>“I wanted them to hear what was in the book and what was being required,” Halloran said. “If you read the transcript it’s like a how to lesson on how to rape.”About a dozen people showed up to protest Halloran at his office early Tuesday. State Sens. Robert Dover of Norfolk and Kathleen Kauth of Omaha talked with them, as did State Sen. John Lowe of Kearney.Dover said felt as though everyone needed to settle down.“We need to have decorum,” Dover said. “We can disagree to disagree, but we need to not attack each other.”Kauth was not present during Halloran’s speech, so protesters played the audio for her. She focused on the book Halloran read from.“So you think this should be available for kids?” Kauth asked. Protesters said the book passage should not have been read aloud at all.&nbsp;Halloran, as well as those calling for his resignation, have freedom of speech, Kauth said.The group confronted Halloran after he arrived and met with Speaker John Arch in the speaker’s office. One protester yelled at Halloran, “You’re a rapist through your words.”The speaker of the Legislature, La Vista Sen. John Arch, began Tuesday morning’s floor debate with an apology for what was said last night.He called on senators to not let it derail the rest of the legislative session, which has 14 more days in a 60-day session.The Legislature, it was pointed out, could issue a letter of rebuke, pass a censure motion, or seek to expel a member, but none of those penalties was pursued Tuesday, despite talk of some punishment Monday night.<h2>Call to ‘temper the toxicity’</h2>Lincoln Sen. Danielle Conrad — a former director of the ACLU of Nebraska — called on colleagues to “temper the toxicity” and to call out inappropriate comments, not seek punishment. She reminded senators that what’s said on the floor is protected free speech.But other senators disagreed and said they were disappointed that some lawmakers were laughing about Halloran’s comments last night.Sen. John Cavanaugh called Halloran’s comments political “grandstanding.”“You sexualized the people you work with for some effect,” he said.“What happened last night was not OK,” DeBoer said.Slama said the comments would get someone fired if they were working at a private company.“Those comments where wholly inappropriate,” she said, adding that the Legislature lacks policies that protect lawmakers from “predatory” colleagues.

Nebraska lawmakers, speaker of Legislature condemn ‘hurtful’ speech about violent rape

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/nu-board-of-regents-could-pick-presidential-finalist-on-wednesday/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — Four days after Gov. Jim Pillen told the University of Nebraska regents they’re taking too long to hire a president, the board cracked open the door to possibly breaking a 4-4 tie.

The agenda for the regents’ Wednesday meeting was revised Tuesday to add another item: “POTENTIAL DESIGNATION OF A PRIORITY CANDIDATE FOR THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA.” It means the board wants the legal flexibility to coalesce around a candidate and name a finalist for the job.

The regents’ next meeting after Wednesday’s is set for April 19, and under NU’s process for hiring presidents, the finalist or priority candidate must visit each of NU’s campuses and have a 30-day vetting period.&nbsp;

The board has been&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/03/16/nu-leadership-choice-was-deadlocked-between-unmc-chancellor-and-state-chamber-head/">deadlocked for months</a>&nbsp;between two candidates: University of Nebraska Medical Center Chancellor Dr. Jeffrey Gold and Bryan Slone, president of the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce, neither of whom has commented.

Pillen, in a Thursday “<a target="_blank" href="https://x.com/TeamPillen/status/1768327970979000570?s=20">call to action</a>,” blamed the regents for not naming a presidential successor sooner and for the departure last week of the flagship campus’ athletic director.

Pillen’s push might have jostled a single vote loose on either side. It’s also possible the board could discuss a different candidate altogether to find consensus. Search committee members won’t talk publicly.

They were previously turned down by U.S. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb. Some observers have hinted that they should consider contacting University of Florida President Ben Sasse, a former U.S. senator from Nebraska who formerly led Midland University in Fremont.

Interim NU President Chris Kabourek has gotten some internal support for the full-time gig, although in accepting the interim role, he was required not to apply for the permanent job.

Some recently told the Examiner that Pillen, a former NU regent, might want the board to declare a failed search. Doing so would allow Kabourek to apply formally for the permanent job.&nbsp;

Pillen last week acknowledged giving some input on the process. His wish list included selecting a candidate with Nebraska ties who is willing to stay for a decade. He also wants a candidate who respects the values of conservative Nebraskans, which some familiar with the search said was a push for someone who won’t advocate for diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Pillen campaigned against DEI efforts in his 2022 run for governor.

Some have criticized Pillen for meddling where he doesn’t belong. State law assigns responsibility for governing the university to the elected eight-member Board of Regents.&nbsp;

Public attention on the presidential search increased after NU Athletics Director Trev Alberts left last week to take the same job at Texas A&amp;M University, citing concerns about leadership. Seven months ago, former NU President Ted Carter accepted a job leading The Ohio State University. He finished the calendar year in Lincoln.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/3/1710863188167.jpeg" alt="The University of Nebraska’s Varner Hall, which houses system-wide communications for the NU system as well as the Office of the NU President. (Courtesy of the University of Nebraska)" />
 <figcaption>The University of Nebraska’s Varner Hall, which houses system-wide communications for the NU system as well as the Office of the NU President. (Courtesy of the University of Nebraska)</figcaption>
 </figure>Paul Hammel<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/nu-board-of-regents-could-pick-presidential-finalist-on-wednesday/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN — Four days after Gov. Jim Pillen told the University of Nebraska regents they’re taking too long to hire a president, the board cracked open the door to possibly breaking a 4-4 tie.The agenda for the regents’ Wednesday meeting was revised Tuesday to add another item: “POTENTIAL DESIGNATION OF A PRIORITY CANDIDATE FOR THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA.” It means the board wants the legal flexibility to coalesce around a candidate and name a finalist for the job.The regents’ next meeting after Wednesday’s is set for April 19, and under NU’s process for hiring presidents, the finalist or priority candidate must visit each of NU’s campuses and have a 30-day vetting period.&nbsp;<h2>Deadlocked for months</h2>The board has been&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/03/16/nu-leadership-choice-was-deadlocked-between-unmc-chancellor-and-state-chamber-head/">deadlocked for months</a>&nbsp;between two candidates: University of Nebraska Medical Center Chancellor Dr. Jeffrey Gold and Bryan Slone, president of the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce, neither of whom has commented.Pillen, in a Thursday “<a target="_blank" href="https://x.com/TeamPillen/status/1768327970979000570?s=20">call to action</a>,” blamed the regents for not naming a presidential successor sooner and for the departure last week of the flagship campus’ athletic director.Pillen’s push might have jostled a single vote loose on either side. It’s also possible the board could discuss a different candidate altogether to find consensus. Search committee members won’t talk publicly.They were previously turned down by U.S. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb. Some observers have hinted that they should consider contacting University of Florida President Ben Sasse, a former U.S. senator from Nebraska who formerly led Midland University in Fremont.Interim NU President Chris Kabourek has gotten some internal support for the full-time gig, although in accepting the interim role, he was required not to apply for the permanent job.Some recently told the Examiner that Pillen, a former NU regent, might want the board to declare a failed search. Doing so would allow Kabourek to apply formally for the permanent job.&nbsp;<h2>Pillen’s input</h2>Pillen last week acknowledged giving some input on the process. His wish list included selecting a candidate with Nebraska ties who is willing to stay for a decade. He also wants a candidate who respects the values of conservative Nebraskans, which some familiar with the search said was a push for someone who won’t advocate for diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Pillen campaigned against DEI efforts in his 2022 run for governor.Some have criticized Pillen for meddling where he doesn’t belong. State law assigns responsibility for governing the university to the elected eight-member Board of Regents.&nbsp;Public attention on the presidential search increased after NU Athletics Director Trev Alberts left last week to take the same job at Texas A&amp;M University, citing concerns about leadership. Seven months ago, former NU President Ted Carter accepted a job leading The Ohio State University. He finished the calendar year in Lincoln.

NU Board of Regents could pick presidential finalist on Wednesday

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/03/18/legislative-committee-moves-closer-to-drafting-final-property-tax-relief-bill/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — A state legislative committee moved closer Monday to finalizing a much-anticipated property tax relief bill, with a key senator saying it might not reach the goal of $1 billion in relief sought by Gov. Jim Pillen.

The Legislature’s Revenue Committee also got a bit of homework Monday evening: a list outlining possible sales tax exemptions to eliminate, and what size increase to prefer in state sales taxes.

“Go through them. Tell me ‘yes,’ ‘no’ or ‘maybe,’ ” said State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan, who chairs the powerful committee that crafts state tax policy.

Later, she gave this assessment of where things stand on the top priority of the 2024 session: “I think we’re making some progress.”

The homework came after a flurry of activities Monday — Day 45 of the 60-day session — concerning the long-anticipated, and as-yet-unfinalized, tax relief proposal. Developments included an unusual, closed-door briefing Monday morning by the Governor’s Office with the eight-member Revenue Committee that excluded news media.

Pillen has “guaranteed” that lawmakers will deliver a $2 billion reduction in local property taxes — actually $1 billion this year on top of $1 billion passed in recent years — even if it takes meeting “every day&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/02/14/despite-pushback-pillen-remains-committed-to-property-tax-relief-plan/">until Christmas</a>.”

But many of his ideas, and in particular a 1-cent increase in state sales taxes, have&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/01/30/pillen-plan-to-sweep-excess-cash-funds-gets-bumpy-reception-at-capitol-hearing/">faced a rocky reception</a>&nbsp;in the Legislature.

Business and retail groups howled that eliminating tax exemptions on soda pop and candy, legal and accounting services, and farm repair parts would hurt Nebraska outlets and force transactions across the border.

Lobbying groups mobilized to oppose a proposed $2-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes and higher taxes on vaping products.

Usually reliable allies of the governor, including the Platte Institute, the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperty, have decried the idea of raising sales taxes to lower property taxes, as a “tax shift” that really isn’t tax relief.

But Linehan, without revealing exact details of the tax plan, said she thinks Nebraskans will be OK with a hike in the state sales tax rate if they see a reduction in their property taxes this fall.

The increase envisioned has been from 5.5 cents to 6.5 cents, which would rank Nebraska at No. 9 highest in the country, matching adjacent Kansas.

Linehan added, however, that it will be up to the Revenue Committee to decide how much to raise the sales tax rate in the final draft of the tax bill. The increase, she said, might be less than 1-cent, depending on the strength of state tax receipts.

‘Don’t know if we’ll get $1 billion’

Pillen has sought, through an increase in sales taxes and new taxes on previously exempt items, to raise $1 billion a year in new revenue, to allow a $1 billion reduction in local property taxes. Coupled with past tax relief bills, that would add up to a 40% overall drop in property taxes, the governor’s much-stated goal.

But Linehan added this: “I don’t know if we’re going to get to $1 billion in one year.”

A key portion of the tax proposal, the senator said, will be a “front loading” of current state tax credits against property taxes, along with the new cuts. Pillen has said that currently, all eligible Nebraskans have not been taking the tax credit available when filing state income taxes, and they need to pay an accountant to get it.

But front loading the tax credits has proved to be complicated, which has delayed a final draft of the tax-relief package.

Linehan said the tax relief will be delivered via a revised state aid formula to K-12 schools, with a goal of providing tax relief to every property owner, but providing more funds to districts with the highest tax levies.

That would be good news to places like Lincoln, Millard and Omaha, which have high tax levies, and to rural districts that generally don’t have high-dollar farm land.

Linehan said the Revenue Committee would meet again Tuesday to work further on the property tax relief bill.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/3/1710858465086.jpeg" alt=" Nebraska State Capitol (Paul Hammel/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption> Nebraska State Capitol (Paul Hammel/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Paul Hammel<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/03/18/legislative-committee-moves-closer-to-drafting-final-property-tax-relief-bill/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN — A state legislative committee moved closer Monday to finalizing a much-anticipated property tax relief bill, with a key senator saying it might not reach the goal of $1 billion in relief sought by Gov. Jim Pillen.The Legislature’s Revenue Committee also got a bit of homework Monday evening: a list outlining possible sales tax exemptions to eliminate, and what size increase to prefer in state sales taxes.“Go through them. Tell me ‘yes,’ ‘no’ or ‘maybe,’ ” said State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan, who chairs the powerful committee that crafts state tax policy.Later, she gave this assessment of where things stand on the top priority of the 2024 session: “I think we’re making some progress.”The homework came after a flurry of activities Monday — Day 45 of the 60-day session — concerning the long-anticipated, and as-yet-unfinalized, tax relief proposal. Developments included an unusual, closed-door briefing Monday morning by the Governor’s Office with the eight-member Revenue Committee that excluded news media.Pillen has “guaranteed” that lawmakers will deliver a $2 billion reduction in local property taxes — actually $1 billion this year on top of $1 billion passed in recent years — even if it takes meeting “every day&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/02/14/despite-pushback-pillen-remains-committed-to-property-tax-relief-plan/">until Christmas</a>.”<h2>Sales tax hike decried as ‘shift’</h2>But many of his ideas, and in particular a 1-cent increase in state sales taxes, have&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/01/30/pillen-plan-to-sweep-excess-cash-funds-gets-bumpy-reception-at-capitol-hearing/">faced a rocky reception</a>&nbsp;in the Legislature.Business and retail groups howled that eliminating tax exemptions on soda pop and candy, legal and accounting services, and farm repair parts would hurt Nebraska outlets and force transactions across the border.Lobbying groups mobilized to oppose a proposed $2-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes and higher taxes on vaping products.Usually reliable allies of the governor, including the Platte Institute, the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperty, have decried the idea of raising sales taxes to lower property taxes, as a “tax shift” that really isn’t tax relief.But Linehan, without revealing exact details of the tax plan, said she thinks Nebraskans will be OK with a hike in the state sales tax rate if they see a reduction in their property taxes this fall.The increase envisioned has been from 5.5 cents to 6.5 cents, which would rank Nebraska at No. 9 highest in the country, matching adjacent Kansas.Linehan added, however, that it will be up to the Revenue Committee to decide how much to raise the sales tax rate in the final draft of the tax bill. The increase, she said, might be less than 1-cent, depending on the strength of state tax receipts.<h2>‘Don’t know if we’ll get $1 billion’</h2>Pillen has sought, through an increase in sales taxes and new taxes on previously exempt items, to raise $1 billion a year in new revenue, to allow a $1 billion reduction in local property taxes. Coupled with past tax relief bills, that would add up to a 40% overall drop in property taxes, the governor’s much-stated goal.But Linehan added this: “I don’t know if we’re going to get to $1 billion in one year.”A key portion of the tax proposal, the senator said, will be a “front loading” of current state tax credits against property taxes, along with the new cuts. Pillen has said that currently, all eligible Nebraskans have not been taking the tax credit available when filing state income taxes, and they need to pay an accountant to get it.But front loading the tax credits has proved to be complicated, which has delayed a final draft of the tax-relief package.Linehan said the tax relief will be delivered via a revised state aid formula to K-12 schools, with a goal of providing tax relief to every property owner, but providing more funds to districts with the highest tax levies.That would be good news to places like Lincoln, Millard and Omaha, which have high tax levies, and to rural districts that generally don’t have high-dollar farm land.Linehan said the Revenue Committee would meet again Tuesday to work further on the property tax relief bill.

Legislative committee moves closer to drafting final property tax relief bill

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden signed an executive order Monday aimed at advancing the study of women's health by strengthening data collection and providing better funding opportunities for biomedical research while chiding Republicans for having “no clue about the power of women" but saying they're "about to find out” come November's election.

(Click below to watch the White House signing ceremony)

Women's health has long been underfunded and understudied. It wasn't until the 1990s that the federal government mandated women be included in federally funded medical research; for most of medical history, though, scientific study was based almost entirely on men.

“We still know too little about how to effectively prevent, diagnose and treat a wide array of health conditions in women,” said Dr. Carolyn Mazure, the head of the White House initiative on women’s health.

Today, research often fails to properly track differences between women and men, and does not represent women equally particularly for illnesses more common to them — which Biden suggested his order would help change.

“To state the obvious, women are half the population and underrepresented across the board. But not in my administration,” the president said, drawing raucous applause at a White House reception marking Women's History Month.

Biden said he’s long been a believer in the “power of research” to help save lives and get high-quality health care to the people who need it. But the executive order also checks off a political box during an election year when women will be crucial to his reelection efforts. First lady Jill Biden is leading both the effort to organize and mobilize female voters and the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jill-biden-research-womens-health-gender-policy-dbe0eec03767cacbbccd07cc83ee15df">White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research</a>.

The announcement comes as the ripple effects spread from the Supreme Court's decision that overturned federal abortion rights, touching on medical issues for women who never intended to end their pregnancies. In&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/alabama-ivf-embryo-frozen-aec76246aad81bc58cd9e51e422a4521">Alabama, for example, the future of IVF was thrown into question statewide</a>&nbsp;after a judge's ruling.

In his comments at the reception, Biden didn't mention by name former President Donald Trump, who is now running to reclaim the White House. Instead, he referred to “my predecessor” who had been “bragging about overturning" the Roe v. Wade decision that had guaranteed the constitutional right to abortion.

The president suggested that would hurt Trump and the GOP during this fall's election, saying, “You can’t lead America with old ideas and take us backward."

Further leaning into politics, Biden said his administration has “turned around the economy because we focused on women,” noting that female unemployment had fallen and the number of women-owned small businesses had increased.

He said his administration has ensured that “women can access jobs in sectors where they’ve been historically underrepresented” and said he'd told leaders from some of the nation's top labor unions that he wants to see more women and minorities in their ranks.

Women were a critical part of the coalition that elected Biden in 2020, giving him 55% of their vote, according to AP VoteCast. Black women and suburban women were pillars of Biden’s coalition while Trump had a modest advantage among white women and a much wider share of white women without college degrees, according to the AP survey of more than 110,000 voters in that year’s election.

Vice President Kamala Harris, women's health advocate Maria Shriver and the first lady also addressed the reception.

“Finally women will get the health care we deserve,” Jill Biden said, saying the order signed Monday was “without precedent.”

Harris drew strong applause for noting that she “stood before you as the first woman vice president of the United States” and talked about&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/video/harris-abortion-mpls-0000018e3ec4d172afefbed648190000">visiting an abortion clinic</a>&nbsp;in Minnesota last week.

“There are those who are intent on dragging us backward,” the vice president said of Republican states that have limited access to abortion.

“We all face a question: What kind of country do we want to live in?” Harris said. "A country of liberty, freedom and rule of law? Or a country of disorder, fear and hate?”

Shriver joked that this is probably the first time a president has signed an executive order that mentions menopause and said the action could only be taken “by a president who respects women.”

The National Institutes of Health is also launching a new effort around menopause and the treatment of menopausal symptoms that will identify research gaps and work to close them, said White House adviser Jennifer Klein. NIH funds a huge amount of biomedical research, imperative for the understanding of how medications affect the human body and for deciding eventually how to dose medicine.

Some conditions have different symptoms for women and men, such as heart disease. Others are more common in women, like Alzheimer’s disease, and some are unique to women — such as endometriosis, uterine cancers and fibroids found in the uterus. It's all ripe for study, Mazure said.

And uneven research can have profound effects; a 2020 study by researchers at the University of Chicago and University of California, Berkeley, found that women were being overmedicated and suffering side effects from common medications, because most of the dosage trials were done only on men.

<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jill-biden-research-womens-health-arpah-shriver-149bf923d666bb980631185c0626a50e">The first lady announced $100 million</a>&nbsp;in funding last month for women's health.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden signed an executive order Monday aimed at advancing the study of women's health by strengthening data collection and providing better funding opportunities for biomedical research while chiding Republicans for having “no clue about the power of women" but saying they're "about to find out” come November's election.(Click below to watch the White House signing ceremony)<div><iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?height=314&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FWhiteHouse%2Fvideos%2F1486913852241915%2F&show_text=false&width=560&t=225" width="560" height="314" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe></div>Women's health has long been underfunded and understudied. It wasn't until the 1990s that the federal government mandated women be included in federally funded medical research; for most of medical history, though, scientific study was based almost entirely on men.“We still know too little about how to effectively prevent, diagnose and treat a wide array of health conditions in women,” said Dr. Carolyn Mazure, the head of the White House initiative on women’s health.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">NEW: President Biden just signed an Executive Order to expand and improve research on women’s health. Through our White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, our Administration is working to fundamentally change how we approach and fund women’s health research in the U.S. <a href="https://t.co/oUcSrBOAaP">pic.twitter.com/oUcSrBOAaP</a>&mdash; The White House (@WhiteHouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1769765190772388281?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 18, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Today, research often fails to properly track differences between women and men, and does not represent women equally particularly for illnesses more common to them — which Biden suggested his order would help change.“To state the obvious, women are half the population and underrepresented across the board. But not in my administration,” the president said, drawing raucous applause at a White House reception marking Women's History Month.Biden said he’s long been a believer in the “power of research” to help save lives and get high-quality health care to the people who need it. But the executive order also checks off a political box during an election year when women will be crucial to his reelection efforts. First lady Jill Biden is leading both the effort to organize and mobilize female voters and the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jill-biden-research-womens-health-gender-policy-dbe0eec03767cacbbccd07cc83ee15df">White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research</a>.The announcement comes as the ripple effects spread from the Supreme Court's decision that overturned federal abortion rights, touching on medical issues for women who never intended to end their pregnancies. In&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/alabama-ivf-embryo-frozen-aec76246aad81bc58cd9e51e422a4521">Alabama, for example, the future of IVF was thrown into question statewide</a>&nbsp;after a judge's ruling.In his comments at the reception, Biden didn't mention by name former President Donald Trump, who is now running to reclaim the White House. Instead, he referred to “my predecessor” who had been “bragging about overturning" the Roe v. Wade decision that had guaranteed the constitutional right to abortion.The president suggested that would hurt Trump and the GOP during this fall's election, saying, “You can’t lead America with old ideas and take us backward."Further leaning into politics, Biden said his administration has “turned around the economy because we focused on women,” noting that female unemployment had fallen and the number of women-owned small businesses had increased.He said his administration has ensured that “women can access jobs in sectors where they’ve been historically underrepresented” and said he'd told leaders from some of the nation's top labor unions that he wants to see more women and minorities in their ranks.Women were a critical part of the coalition that elected Biden in 2020, giving him 55% of their vote, according to AP VoteCast. Black women and suburban women were pillars of Biden’s coalition while Trump had a modest advantage among white women and a much wider share of white women without college degrees, according to the AP survey of more than 110,000 voters in that year’s election.Vice President Kamala Harris, women's health advocate Maria Shriver and the first lady also addressed the reception.“Finally women will get the health care we deserve,” Jill Biden said, saying the order signed Monday was “without precedent.”Harris drew strong applause for noting that she “stood before you as the first woman vice president of the United States” and talked about&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/video/harris-abortion-mpls-0000018e3ec4d172afefbed648190000">visiting an abortion clinic</a>&nbsp;in Minnesota last week.“There are those who are intent on dragging us backward,” the vice president said of Republican states that have limited access to abortion.“We all face a question: What kind of country do we want to live in?” Harris said. "A country of liberty, freedom and rule of law? Or a country of disorder, fear and hate?”Shriver joked that this is probably the first time a president has signed an executive order that mentions menopause and said the action could only be taken “by a president who respects women.”The National Institutes of Health is also launching a new effort around menopause and the treatment of menopausal symptoms that will identify research gaps and work to close them, said White House adviser Jennifer Klein. NIH funds a huge amount of biomedical research, imperative for the understanding of how medications affect the human body and for deciding eventually how to dose medicine.Some conditions have different symptoms for women and men, such as heart disease. Others are more common in women, like Alzheimer’s disease, and some are unique to women — such as endometriosis, uterine cancers and fibroids found in the uterus. It's all ripe for study, Mazure said.And uneven research can have profound effects; a 2020 study by researchers at the University of Chicago and University of California, Berkeley, found that women were being overmedicated and suffering side effects from common medications, because most of the dosage trials were done only on men.<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jill-biden-research-womens-health-arpah-shriver-149bf923d666bb980631185c0626a50e">The first lady announced $100 million</a>&nbsp;in funding last month for women's health.

🎥Biden signs executive order advancing study of women's health

JERUSALEM —U.S. Forces continue to face attacks in the Red Sea. On Monday, U.S. forces successfully engaged and destroyed seven anti-ship missiles, three unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and three weapons storage containers in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen in self-defense, according to a statement from the&nbsp;United States Central Command.

It was determined these weapons presented an imminent threat to merchant vessels and U.S. Navy ships in the region.

These actions are taken to protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S. Navy and merchant vessels.

Meanwhile, a senior U.S. official says an Israeli strike killed Marwan Issa, the deputy leader of Hamas’ armed wing in Gaza who helped plan the Oct. 7 attack. Israel and Hamas have not confirmed Issa’s death, and White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan did not say how U.S. intelligence had concluded he was killed. But if the reports are confirmed, Issa would be the highest-ranking Hamas leader to have been killed in Gaza since the start of the war. 

Israel has killed several top leaders of Hamas over the years, only to see them quickly replaced with little apparent impact on the group’s operations. Sullivan told reporters in Washington on Monday that Issa “was killed in an Israeli operation last week.” Issa was the deputy to Mohammed Deif, the shadowy longtime leader of Hamas’ military wing, who is said to have survived several previous Israeli attempts on his life.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-leader-gaza-war-sinwar-7359ae98217aa11aa7c20c2780d5d350">Hamas’ top leader in Gaza</a>, and the alleged mastermind of the Oct. 7 attack that triggered the war, is Yehya Sinwar.

 Both Sinwar and Deif are believed to be alive and in hiding in Gaza, and Israel has vowed to kill them. Israel says it has killed over 13,000 Hamas fighters since the start of the war, without providing evidence. 

The Gaza Health Ministry said Monday that at least 31,726 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s offensive since Hamas’ Oct. 7 on southern Israel. The ministry&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033">doesn’t differentiate</a>&nbsp;between civilians and combatants in its count, but it says&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/women-children-gaza-war-victims-un-inequality-f0f89a724543b99c2c22439e7af09405">women and children</a>&nbsp;make up two-thirds of the dead.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/12/1703418619283.png" alt="Photo U.S. Central Command" />
 <figcaption>Photo U.S. Central Command</figcaption>
 </figure>JERUSALEM —U.S. Forces continue to face attacks in the Red Sea. On Monday, U.S. forces successfully engaged and destroyed seven anti-ship missiles, three unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and three weapons storage containers in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen in self-defense, according to a statement from the&nbsp;United States Central Command.It was determined these weapons presented an imminent threat to merchant vessels and U.S. Navy ships in the region.

These actions are taken to protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S. Navy and merchant vessels.Meanwhile, a senior U.S. official says an Israeli strike killed Marwan Issa, the deputy leader of Hamas’ armed wing in Gaza who helped plan the Oct. 7 attack. Israel and Hamas have not confirmed Issa’s death, and White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan did not say how U.S. intelligence had concluded he was killed. But if the reports are confirmed, Issa would be the highest-ranking Hamas leader to have been killed in Gaza since the start of the war. Israel has killed several top leaders of Hamas over the years, only to see them quickly replaced with little apparent impact on the group’s operations. Sullivan told reporters in Washington on Monday that Issa “was killed in an Israeli operation last week.” Issa was the deputy to Mohammed Deif, the shadowy longtime leader of Hamas’ military wing, who is said to have survived several previous Israeli attempts on his life.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-leader-gaza-war-sinwar-7359ae98217aa11aa7c20c2780d5d350">Hamas’ top leader in Gaza</a>, and the alleged mastermind of the Oct. 7 attack that triggered the war, is Yehya Sinwar. Both Sinwar and Deif are believed to be alive and in hiding in Gaza, and Israel has vowed to kill them. Israel says it has killed over 13,000 Hamas fighters since the start of the war, without providing evidence. The Gaza Health Ministry said Monday that at least 31,726 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s offensive since Hamas’ Oct. 7 on southern Israel. The ministry&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033">doesn’t differentiate</a>&nbsp;between civilians and combatants in its count, but it says&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/women-children-gaza-war-victims-un-inequality-f0f89a724543b99c2c22439e7af09405">women and children</a>&nbsp;make up two-thirds of the dead.

U.S. warships face more attempted attacks in the Red Sea

MARCH 18, 2024 (LINCOLN, NEB.)&nbsp;&nbsp;—&nbsp; Nebraska State Patrol troopers removed 10 impaired drivers from the road as a part of a special enforcement effort around St. Patrick’s Day. The campaign, which ran from Saturday evening through Monday morning, included numerous law enforcement agencies across the state.

In total, troopers arrested 10 motorists for driving under the influence. Troopers also issued citations for speeding (171), minor in possession of alcohol (3), driving under suspension (14), no seat belt (2), and improper child restraint (2). Troopers also performed 54 motorists assists during St. Patrick’s Day weekend.

NSP’s effort was made possible thanks in part to grant funding from the Nebraska Department of Transportation – Highway Safety Office.

As warmer weather arrives, NSP reminds all motorists to help keep Nebraska roads safe. Remember to always drive sober, follow posted speed limits, and traffic safety laws, avoid distractions, and wear your seatbelt. Troopers will participate in many additional traffic safety initiatives throughout the spring and summer months.&nbsp;

Mikayla HallNebraska State PatrolMARCH 18, 2024 (LINCOLN, NEB.)&nbsp;&nbsp;—&nbsp; Nebraska State Patrol troopers removed 10 impaired drivers from the road as a part of a special enforcement effort around St. Patrick’s Day. The campaign, which ran from Saturday evening through Monday morning, included numerous law enforcement agencies across the state.In total, troopers arrested 10 motorists for driving under the influence. Troopers also issued citations for speeding (171), minor in possession of alcohol (3), driving under suspension (14), no seat belt (2), and improper child restraint (2). Troopers also performed 54 motorists assists during St. Patrick’s Day weekend.NSP’s effort was made possible thanks in part to grant funding from the Nebraska Department of Transportation – Highway Safety Office.As warmer weather arrives, NSP reminds all motorists to help keep Nebraska roads safe. Remember to always drive sober, follow posted speed limits, and traffic safety laws, avoid distractions, and wear your seatbelt. Troopers will participate in many additional traffic safety initiatives throughout the spring and summer months.&nbsp;

Troopers Arrest 10 Impaired Drivers in St. Patrick’s Day Campaign

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;seemed likely Monday to side with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/social-media-biden-administration-lawsuit-injunction-6322aae981bdc5c9009babde4b31ab60">controversial social media posts</a>&nbsp;on topics including COVID-19 and election security in a case that could set standards for free speech in the digital age.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-411/">Click here to listen to a replay</a>&nbsp;of the oral argument&nbsp;

The justices seemed broadly skeptical during nearly two hours of arguments that a lawyer for Louisiana, Missouri and other parties presented accusing officials in the Democratic administration of leaning on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.

Lower courts have sided with the states, but the Supreme Court blocked those rulings while it considers the issue.

Several justices said they were concerned that common interactions between government officials and the platforms could be affected by a ruling for the states.

In one example, Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed surprise when Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga questioned whether the FBI could call Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) to encourage them to take down posts that maliciously released someone's personal information without permission, the practice known as doxxing.

“Do you know how often the FBI makes those calls?” Barrett asked, suggesting they happen frequently.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also signaled that a ruling for the states would mean that “traditional, everyday communications would suddenly be deemed problematic.”

The case Monday was among several the court is considering that affect social media companies in the context of free speech. Last week, the court laid out&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-public-officials-973f1d18e74faccaa4bfce3bd65cc1af">standards for when public officials can block their social media followers</a>. Less than a month ago, the court heard arguments over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-florida-texas-820e90e58e49c1146b69101ece4dd9d5">Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas</a>&nbsp;that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.

The cases over state laws and the one that was argued Monday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.

The states argue that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who coerced changes in online content on social media platforms.

Aguiñaga put the situation in stark terms, telling the justices that “the record reveals unrelenting pressure by the government to coerce social media platforms to suppress the speech of millions of Americans.”

He said that calls merely encouraging the platforms to act also could violate speech rights, responding to a hypothetical situation conjured by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, about an online challenge that “involved teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations.”

Jackson, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, pressed the Louisiana lawyer about whether platforms could be encouraged to remove such posts.

“I was with you right until that last comment, Your Honor,” Aguiñaga said. “I think they absolutely can call and say this is a problem, it’s going rampant on your platforms, but the moment that the government tries to use its ability as the government and its stature as the government to pressure them to take it down, that is when you’re interfering with the third party’s speech rights.”

Justice Samuel Alito appeared most open to the states' arguments, at one point referring to the government's “constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms.” Alito, along with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, would have allowed the restrictions on government contacts with the platforms to go into effect.

Justice Department lawyer Brian Fletcher argued that none of the actions the states complain about come close to problematic coercion and that the federal government would lose its ability to communicate with the social media companies about antisemitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as on issues of national security, public health and election integrity.

The platforms are large sophisticated actors with no reluctance to stand up to the government, “saying no repeatedly when they disagree with what the government is asking them to do,” Fletcher said.

Justice Elena Kagan and Kavanaugh, two justices who served in the White House earlier in their careers, seemed to agree, likening the exchanges between officials and the platforms to relationships between the government and more traditional media.

Kavanaugh described “experienced government press people throughout the federal government who regularly call up the media and -- and berate them.”

Later, Kagan said, “I mean, this happens literally thousands of times a day in the federal government.”

Alito, gesturing at the courtroom's press section, mused that whenever reporters “write something we don't like,” the court's chief spokeswoman “can call them up and curse them out and say...why don’t we be partners? We’re on the same team. Why don’t you show us what you’re going to write beforehand? We’ll edit it for you, make sure it’s accurate.”

Free speech advocates said the court should use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government's acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.

“We’re encouraged that the Court was sensitive both to the First Amendment rights of platforms and their users, and to the public interest in having a government empowered to participate in public discourse. To that end, we hope that the Court resolves these cases by making clear that the First Amendment prohibits coercion but permits the government to attempt to shape public opinion through the use of persuasion.” Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in a statement.

A panel of three judges on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled earlier that the Biden administration had probably brought unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appellate panel said officials cannot attempt to “coerce or significantly encourage” changes in online content. The panel had previously narrowed a more sweeping order from a federal judge, who wanted to include even more government officials and prohibit mere encouragement of content changes.

A divided Supreme Court put the 5th Circuit ruling on hold in October, when it agreed to take up the case.

A decision in Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411, is expected by early summer.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a busy term that could set standards for free speech in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Monday is taking up a dispute between Republican-led states and the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to combat&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/social-media-biden-administration-lawsuit-injunction-6322aae981bdc5c9009babde4b31ab60">controversial social media posts</a>&nbsp;on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-411\">Click here to listen to a replay</a> of the oral argument&nbsp;

The justices are hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by Louisiana, Missouri and other parties accusing officials in the Democratic administration of leaning on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view. Lower courts have sided with the states, but the Supreme Court blocked those rulings while it considers the issue.

The high court is in the midst of a term heavy with social media issues. On Friday, the court laid out&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-public-officials-973f1d18e74faccaa4bfce3bd65cc1af">standards for when public officials can block their social media followers</a>. Less than a month ago, the court heard arguments over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-florida-texas-820e90e58e49c1146b69101ece4dd9d5">Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas</a>&nbsp;that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.

The cases over state laws and the one being argued Monday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.

The states argue that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who coerced changes in online content on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and other media platforms.

“It’s a very, very threatening thing when the federal government uses the power and authority of the government to block people from exercising their freedom of speech,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a video her office posted online.

The administration responds that none of the actions the states complain about come close to problematic coercion. The states “still have not identified any instance in which any government official sought to coerce a platform’s editorial decisions with a threat of adverse government action,” wrote Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer. Prelogar wrote that states also can't “point to any evidence that the government ever imposed any sanction when the platforms declined to moderate content the government had flagged — as routinely occurred.”

The companies themselves are not involved in the case.

Free speech advocates say the court should use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government's acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.

"The government has no authority to threaten platforms into censoring protected speech, but it must have the ability to participate in public discourse so that it can effectively govern and inform the public of its views,” Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in a statement.

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have rejected the emergency appeal from the Biden administration.

Alito wrote in dissent in October: “At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate."

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/3/1710764500358.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;seemed likely Monday to side with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/social-media-biden-administration-lawsuit-injunction-6322aae981bdc5c9009babde4b31ab60">controversial social media posts</a>&nbsp;on topics including COVID-19 and election security in a case that could set standards for free speech in the digital age.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-411/">Click here to listen to a replay</a>&nbsp;of the oral argument&nbsp;The justices seemed broadly skeptical during nearly two hours of arguments that a lawyer for Louisiana, Missouri and other parties presented accusing officials in the Democratic administration of leaning on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.Lower courts have sided with the states, but the Supreme Court blocked those rulings while it considers the issue.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">When I was AG I filed Missouri v Biden. On Monday the Supreme Court hears the case. It’s the most important Free Speech case in our nation’s history. The government can’t censor speech &amp; it can’t outsource censorship to social media giants either.<a href="https://t.co/jWzshevGsl">pic.twitter.com/jWzshevGsl</a>&mdash; Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) <a href="https://twitter.com/Eric_Schmitt/status/1769025010948067493?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 16, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Several justices said they were concerned that common interactions between government officials and the platforms could be affected by a ruling for the states.In one example, Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed surprise when Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga questioned whether the FBI could call Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) to encourage them to take down posts that maliciously released someone's personal information without permission, the practice known as doxxing.“Do you know how often the FBI makes those calls?” Barrett asked, suggesting they happen frequently.Justice Brett Kavanaugh also signaled that a ruling for the states would mean that “traditional, everyday communications would suddenly be deemed problematic.”The case Monday was among several the court is considering that affect social media companies in the context of free speech. Last week, the court laid out&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-public-officials-973f1d18e74faccaa4bfce3bd65cc1af">standards for when public officials can block their social media followers</a>. Less than a month ago, the court heard arguments over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-florida-texas-820e90e58e49c1146b69101ece4dd9d5">Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas</a>&nbsp;that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.The cases over state laws and the one that was argued Monday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.The states argue that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who coerced changes in online content on social media platforms.Aguiñaga put the situation in stark terms, telling the justices that “the record reveals unrelenting pressure by the government to coerce social media platforms to suppress the speech of millions of Americans.”He said that calls merely encouraging the platforms to act also could violate speech rights, responding to a hypothetical situation conjured by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, about an online challenge that “involved teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations.”Jackson, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, pressed the Louisiana lawyer about whether platforms could be encouraged to remove such posts.“I was with you right until that last comment, Your Honor,” Aguiñaga said. “I think they absolutely can call and say this is a problem, it’s going rampant on your platforms, but the moment that the government tries to use its ability as the government and its stature as the government to pressure them to take it down, that is when you’re interfering with the third party’s speech rights.”Justice Samuel Alito appeared most open to the states' arguments, at one point referring to the government's “constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms.” Alito, along with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, would have allowed the restrictions on government contacts with the platforms to go into effect.Justice Department lawyer Brian Fletcher argued that none of the actions the states complain about come close to problematic coercion and that the federal government would lose its ability to communicate with the social media companies about antisemitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as on issues of national security, public health and election integrity.The platforms are large sophisticated actors with no reluctance to stand up to the government, “saying no repeatedly when they disagree with what the government is asking them to do,” Fletcher said.Justice Elena Kagan and Kavanaugh, two justices who served in the White House earlier in their careers, seemed to agree, likening the exchanges between officials and the platforms to relationships between the government and more traditional media.Kavanaugh described “experienced government press people throughout the federal government who regularly call up the media and -- and berate them.”Later, Kagan said, “I mean, this happens literally thousands of times a day in the federal government.”Alito, gesturing at the courtroom's press section, mused that whenever reporters “write something we don't like,” the court's chief spokeswoman “can call them up and curse them out and say...why don’t we be partners? We’re on the same team. Why don’t you show us what you’re going to write beforehand? We’ll edit it for you, make sure it’s accurate.”Free speech advocates said the court should use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government's acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.“We’re encouraged that the Court was sensitive both to the First Amendment rights of platforms and their users, and to the public interest in having a government empowered to participate in public discourse. To that end, we hope that the Court resolves these cases by making clear that the First Amendment prohibits coercion but permits the government to attempt to shape public opinion through the use of persuasion.” Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in a statement.A panel of three judges on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled earlier that the Biden administration had probably brought unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appellate panel said officials cannot attempt to “coerce or significantly encourage” changes in online content. The panel had previously narrowed a more sweeping order from a federal judge, who wanted to include even more government officials and prohibit mere encouragement of content changes.A divided Supreme Court put the 5th Circuit ruling on hold in October, when it agreed to take up the case.A decision in Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411, is expected by early summer.----------<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/3/1710764500358.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — In a busy term that could set standards for free speech in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Monday is taking up a dispute between Republican-led states and the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to combat&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/social-media-biden-administration-lawsuit-injunction-6322aae981bdc5c9009babde4b31ab60">controversial social media posts</a>&nbsp;on topics including COVID-19 and election security.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-411\">Click here to listen to a replay</a> of the oral argument&nbsp;The justices are hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by Louisiana, Missouri and other parties accusing officials in the Democratic administration of leaning on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view. Lower courts have sided with the states, but the Supreme Court blocked those rulings while it considers the issue.The high court is in the midst of a term heavy with social media issues. On Friday, the court laid out&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-public-officials-973f1d18e74faccaa4bfce3bd65cc1af">standards for when public officials can block their social media followers</a>. Less than a month ago, the court heard arguments over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-florida-texas-820e90e58e49c1146b69101ece4dd9d5">Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas</a>&nbsp;that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.The cases over state laws and the one being argued Monday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.The states argue that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who coerced changes in online content on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and other media platforms.“It’s a very, very threatening thing when the federal government uses the power and authority of the government to block people from exercising their freedom of speech,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a video her office posted online.The administration responds that none of the actions the states complain about come close to problematic coercion. The states “still have not identified any instance in which any government official sought to coerce a platform’s editorial decisions with a threat of adverse government action,” wrote Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer. Prelogar wrote that states also can't “point to any evidence that the government ever imposed any sanction when the platforms declined to moderate content the government had flagged — as routinely occurred.”The companies themselves are not involved in the case.Free speech advocates say the court should use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government's acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech."The government has no authority to threaten platforms into censoring protected speech, but it must have the ability to participate in public discourse so that it can effectively govern and inform the public of its views,” Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in a statement.A panel of three judges on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled earlier that the Biden administration had probably brought unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appellate panel said officials cannot attempt to “coerce or significantly encourage” changes in online content. The panel had previously narrowed a more sweeping order from a federal judge, who wanted to include even more government officials and prohibit mere encouragement of content changes.A divided Supreme Court put the 5th Circuit ruling on hold in October, when it agreed to take up the case.Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have rejected the emergency appeal from the Biden administration.Alito wrote in dissent in October: “At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate."

🎧 Social media censorship: Supreme Court’s oral arguments

&nbsp;(LINCOLN, NEB.)&nbsp;&nbsp;—&nbsp;&nbsp;March 9, 2024.&nbsp; Investigators with the Nebraska State Patrol have conducted alcohol compliance checks in Box Butte County.

During the afternoon and evening hours on Saturday March 9, 2024, investigators conducted alcohol compliance checks in Box Butte County. This project was supported by grant #1848 form the Panhandle Public Health District.

In total, 24 businesses were checked.&nbsp; One of those businesses sold alcohol to a minor for a compliance rate of 95.8%.&nbsp; The business checked the minor’s identification before sale.

The Business that failed the compliance check was:

The businesses included convivence stores, grocery stores, restaurants, liquor stores and bars.

Businesses that sell alcohol to minors are referred to the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission.&nbsp; Clerks who sell alcohol to minors are cited for procuring alcohol for a minor.

Cody ThomasNebraska State Patrol&nbsp;(LINCOLN, NEB.)&nbsp;&nbsp;—&nbsp;&nbsp;March 9, 2024.&nbsp; Investigators with the Nebraska State Patrol have conducted alcohol compliance checks in Box Butte County.During the afternoon and evening hours on Saturday March 9, 2024, investigators conducted alcohol compliance checks in Box Butte County. This project was supported by grant #1848 form the Panhandle Public Health District.In total, 24 businesses were checked.&nbsp; One of those businesses sold alcohol to a minor for a compliance rate of 95.8%.&nbsp; The business checked the minor’s identification before sale.The Business that failed the compliance check was:Safeway 549 - AllianceThe businesses included convivence stores, grocery stores, restaurants, liquor stores and bars.Businesses that sell alcohol to minors are referred to the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission.&nbsp; Clerks who sell alcohol to minors are cited for procuring alcohol for a minor.

Alcohol Compliance Checks Held in Box Butte County

As rural hospitals continue to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/birthing-rural-hospitals-maternity-care-births-e67a91d927eb545459e83bc7b2b95a0d">struggle financially</a>, a new type of hospital is slowly taking root, especially in the Southeast.

Rural emergency hospitals receive more than $3 million in federal funding a year and higher Medicare reimbursements in exchange for closing all inpatient beds and providing 24/7 emergency care. While that makes it easier for a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/general-news-39a05dbce9be4070adce079fd152c7b7">hospital to keep its doors open</a>, experts say it doesn’t solve&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/kentucky-rural-hospitals-legislature-63a1509ab3d6455f77e43476ea710800">all of the challenges</a>&nbsp;facing rural health care.

People might have to travel further for treatments for illnesses that require inpatient stays, like pneumonia or COVID-19. In some of the communities where hospitals have converted to the new designation, residents are confused about what kind of care they can receive. Plus, rural hospitals are hesitant to make the switch, because there’s no margin of error.

“It’s ironic” that the facilities that might need the most help can’t afford to take the risk, said Carrie Cochran-McClain, chief policy officer at the National Rural Health Association. She pointed to having to give up certain services and benefits, such as a federal discount program for prescription drugs.

The government, which classifies hospitals by type, rolled out the rural emergency option in January 2023. Only 19 hospitals across the U.S. received rural emergency hospital status last year, according to the University of North Carolina’s Sheps Center for Health Services Research.

The majority are in the South, with some in the Midwest, and hospitals in Nebraska and Florida recently started to explore the option.

The designation is aimed at a very specific population, said George Pink, deputy director of the Sheps Center’s Rural Health Research Program, and that's rural hospitals on the brink of closure with few people getting inpatient care already.

That was the case for Irwin County Hospital in Ocilla, Georgia, which was the second rural emergency hospital established in the U.S.

Weeks prior to converting, the hospital received at least $1 million in credit from the county so it could make pay employees — money that county board of supervisors chairman Scott Carver doubted he’d see returned.

“We operate on a $6 million budget for the county, so to extend that kind of line of credit was dangerous on our part to some degree," he said. “But ... we felt like we had to try.”

Irwin County Hospital became a rural emergency hospital on Feb. 1, 2023. Quentin Whitwell, the hospital's CEO, said it was an ideal candidate.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/3/1710775775312.jpeg" alt="An unused gurney rests in the emergency room hallway outside one of the treatment rooms at the Alliance Healthcare System hospital in Holly Springs, Miss., Feb. 29, 2024. Rural emergency hospitals are starting to gain a small foothold in the United States. They provide 24/7 emergency care and receive more than $3 million in federal money a year. But the catch is there are zero inpatient beds at the facilities. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis)" />
 <figcaption>An unused gurney rests in the emergency room hallway outside one of the treatment rooms at the Alliance Healthcare System hospital in Holly Springs, Miss., Feb. 29, 2024. Rural emergency hospitals are starting to gain a small foothold in the United States. They provide 24/7 emergency care and receive more than $3 million in federal money a year. But the catch is there are zero inpatient beds at the facilities. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis)</figcaption>
 </figure>Story from Associated PressAs rural hospitals continue to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/birthing-rural-hospitals-maternity-care-births-e67a91d927eb545459e83bc7b2b95a0d">struggle financially</a>, a new type of hospital is slowly taking root, especially in the Southeast.Rural emergency hospitals receive more than $3 million in federal funding a year and higher Medicare reimbursements in exchange for closing all inpatient beds and providing 24/7 emergency care. While that makes it easier for a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/general-news-39a05dbce9be4070adce079fd152c7b7">hospital to keep its doors open</a>, experts say it doesn’t solve&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/kentucky-rural-hospitals-legislature-63a1509ab3d6455f77e43476ea710800">all of the challenges</a>&nbsp;facing rural health care.People might have to travel further for treatments for illnesses that require inpatient stays, like pneumonia or COVID-19. In some of the communities where hospitals have converted to the new designation, residents are confused about what kind of care they can receive. Plus, rural hospitals are hesitant to make the switch, because there’s no margin of error.“It’s ironic” that the facilities that might need the most help can’t afford to take the risk, said Carrie Cochran-McClain, chief policy officer at the National Rural Health Association. She pointed to having to give up certain services and benefits, such as a federal discount program for prescription drugs.The government, which classifies hospitals by type, rolled out the rural emergency option in January 2023. Only 19 hospitals across the U.S. received rural emergency hospital status last year, according to the University of North Carolina’s Sheps Center for Health Services Research.The majority are in the South, with some in the Midwest, and hospitals in Nebraska and Florida recently started to explore the option.The designation is aimed at a very specific population, said George Pink, deputy director of the Sheps Center’s Rural Health Research Program, and that's rural hospitals on the brink of closure with few people getting inpatient care already.Saving rural careThat was the case for Irwin County Hospital in Ocilla, Georgia, which was the second rural emergency hospital established in the U.S.Weeks prior to converting, the hospital received at least $1 million in credit from the county so it could make pay employees — money that county board of supervisors chairman Scott Carver doubted he’d see returned.“We operate on a $6 million budget for the county, so to extend that kind of line of credit was dangerous on our part to some degree," he said. “But ... we felt like we had to try.”Irwin County Hospital became a rural emergency hospital on Feb. 1, 2023. Quentin Whitwell, the hospital's CEO, said it was an ideal candidate.“We’re still finding out what some of the impacts are, given that it’s a new thing,” said Whitwell, who through his company Progressive Health Systems owns and manages six hospitals in the Southeast, most of which are rural emergency hospitals or have applied for the designation. “But the change to a rural emergency hospital has transformed this hospital.”A combination of state programs and tax credits, plus the new designation, means the hospital has $4 million in the bank, Carver said. Simply put, the work was worth it to him.Traci Harper, a longtime Ocilla resident, isn’t so sure. About a year ago, she rushed her son to the hospital for emergency care for spinal meningitis.Because the new designation requires the hospital to transfer patients to larger hospitals within 24 hours, Harper’s son was sent to another in-state facility and three days later ended up getting the care he needed in a hospital in Jacksonville, Florida.“That's two hours away,” she said. “The whole time I could have taken him there myself, but nobody told me that.”‘Barely surviving’Nebraska’s first rural emergency hospital opened in February in a city called Friend.Warren Memorial Hospital had reached a breaking point: Federal pandemic relief money had dried up. The city, which owns the hospital, had to start extending lines of credit so hospital employees could get paid. A major street repair project was even delayed, said Jared Chaffin, the hospital’s chief financial officer and one of three co-CEOs.“Back in the summer, we were barely surviving,” said Amy Thimm, the hospital’s vice president of clinical services and quality and co-CEO.Though residents expressed concerns at a September town hall about closing inpatient services, the importance of having emergency care outweighed other worries.“We have farmers and ranchers and people who don’t have the time to drive an hour to get care, so they’ll just go without,” said Ron Te Brink, co-CEO and chief information officer. “Rural health care is so extremely important to a lot of Nebraska communities like ours.”The first federal payment, about $270,000, arrived March 5. Chaffin projects the hospital’s revenue will be $6 million this year — more than it’s ever made.“That’s just insane, especially for our little hospital here,” he said. “We still have Mount Everest to climb, and we still have so much work ahead of us. The designation alone is not a savior for the hospital — it’s a lifeline.”Rural troublesThat lifeline has proven difficult to hold onto for Alliance Healthcare System in Holly Springs, Mississippi, another one of Whitwell’s hospitals and the fourth facility in the country to convert.Months after being approved as a rural emergency hospital in March 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reneged on its decision.Hospital CEO Dr. Kenneth Williams told The Associated Press that the government said the hospital isn't rural because it is less than an hour away from Memphis. A CMS spokesperson said the facility was “inadvertently certified."The hospital has until April to transition back to full service, but many in the community of largely retirees believe the hospital has closed, Williams said. Patient volume is at a record low. If the federal payments stop coming, Williams isn’t sure the hospital will survive.“We might have been closed if we hadn’t (become a rural emergency hospital), so ... something had to be done,” he said. “Do I regret all of the issues that for some reason we’ve incurred that the other (hospitals) have not? I don’t know.”Though Alliance appears to be one of few facilities that have been negatively impacted by converting to a rural emergency hospital, Pink said it’s too soon to know if the federal designation is a success.“If my intuition is correct, it will probably work well for some communities and it may not work well for others,” he said.Cochran-McClain said her organization is trying to work with Congress to change regulations that have been a barrier for rural facilities, like closing inpatient behavioral health beds that are&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/transgender-youth-emergency-psychiatry-north-carolina-0b1349f338d3110806fcbb2276e2e42b">already scarce.</a>Brock Slabach, the National Rural Health Association's chief operations officer, told the AP that upwards of 30 facilities are interested in converting to rural emergency hospitals this year.As Whitwell sees it: “As this program evolves, there will be more people that I think will understand the value.”&nbsp;