By COLIN DAYAN <a href="https://theconversation.com/pit-bulls-went-from-americas-best-friend-to-public-enemy-now-theyre-slowly-coming-full-circle-192483">The Conversation</a>

As recently as 50 years ago, the pit bull was America’s favorite dog.
 Pit bulls were everywhere. They were popular in advertising and used to
 promote the joys of pet-and-human friendship. <a href="https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/lifestyle/high-fidelity-nipper-the-rca-dog/">Nipper on the RCA Victor label</a>, <a href="https://www.kennel.com/our-gang-the-little-rascals-and-petey-the-pit-bull/">Pete the Pup</a> in the “Our Gang” comedy short films, and the flag-wrapped dog on a <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WW1_poster_featuring_a_pit_bull.jpg">classic World War I poster</a> all were pit bulls.

With <a href="https://www.metlifepetinsurance.com/blog/breed-spotlights/national-pitbull-awareness-day/">National Pit Bull Awareness Day</a> celebrated on Oct. 26, it’s a fitting time to ask how these dogs came to be seen as a dangerous threat.

Starting around 1990, multiple features of American life converged to
 inspire widespread bans that made pit bulls outlaws, called “<a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-11-13-mn-62013-story.html">four-legged guns</a>” or “<a href="https://www.deseret.com/1995/12/26/19211866/pit-bulls-are-lethal-ban-them">lethal weapons</a>.”
 The drivers included some dog attacks, excessive parental caution, 
fearful insurance companies and a tie to the sport of dog fighting.

As a professor of <a href="http://colindayan.com/">humanities and law</a>,
 I have studied the legal history of slaves, vagrants, criminals, terror
 suspects and others deemed threats to civilized society. For my books “<a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691157870/the-law-is-a-white-dog">The Law is a White Dog</a>” and “<a href="http://cup.columbia.edu/book/with-dogs-at-the-edge-of-life/9780231167123">With Dogs at the Edge of Life</a>,” I explored human-dog relationships and how laws and regulations can deny equal protection to entire classes of beings.

In my experience with these dogs – including nearly 12 years living 
with Stella, the daughter of champion fighting dogs – I have learned 
that pit bulls are not inherently dangerous. Like other dogs, they can 
become dangerous in certain situations, and at the hands of certain 
owners. But in my view, there is no defensible rationale for condemning 
not only all pit bulls, but any dog with a single pit bull gene, as <a href="https://www.forallanimals.org/pit-bull-terriers-breed-discriminatory-legislation-faqs/">some laws do</a>.

I see such action as canine profiling, which recalls another legal fiction: the <a href="https://www.amacad.org/publication/one-drop-one-hate">taint or stain of blood</a> that ordained human degradation and race hatred in the United States.

The pit bull is strong. Its jaw grip is almost impossible to break. Bred over centuries to <a href="https://www.tuftsyourdog.com/dogtrainingandbehavior/dear-doctor-pit-bulls-and-locking-jaws/">bite and hold large animals</a> like bears and bulls around the face and head, it’s known as a “game dog.” Its bravery and strength <a href="https://pets.webmd.com/dogs/features/pit-bulls-safety">won’t allow it to give up</a>, no matter how long the struggle. It loves with the same strength; its loyalty remains <a href="https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls">the stuff of legend</a>.

For decades pit bulls’ tenacity encouraged the sport of dogfighting, 
with the dogs “pitted” against each other. Fights often went to the 
death, and winning animals earned huge sums for those who bet on them.  

But betting on dogs is not a high-class sport. Dogs are not horses; 
they cost little to acquire and maintain. Pit bulls easily and quickly 
became associated with the poor, and <a href="https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/32171-25-1-third-articlepdf">especially with Black men</a>, in a narrative that connected pit bulls with gang violence and crime.

That’s how prejudice works: The one-on-one <a href="https://drexel.edu/%7E/media/Files/law/law%20review/v10-3/Saucier%2010%20Drexel%20L%20Rev%20673.ashx">lamination of the pit bull onto the African American male</a> reduced people to their accessories.

Dogfighting was <a href="https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-dog-fighting">outlawed in all 50 states by 1976</a>, although illegal businesses persisted. Coverage of the practice spawned <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/pit-bull-ban-aggressive-dog-breed-bronwen-dickey">broad assertions</a>
 about the dogs that did the fighting. As breed bans proliferated, legal
 rulings proclaimed these dogs “dangerous to the safety or health of the
 community” and judged that “<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/166/698/">public interests demand that the worthless shall be exterminated</a>.”

In 1987 Sports Illustrated put a pit bull, teeth bared, on its cover,
 with the headline “Beware of this Dog,” which it characterized as <a href="https://vault.si.com/vault/1987/07/27/the-pit-bull-friend-and-killer-is-the-pit-bull-a-fine-animal-as-its-admirers-claim-or-is-it-a-vicious-dog-unfit-for-society">born with “a will to kill</a>.”
 Time magazine published “Time Bombs on Legs” featuring this “vicious 
hound of the Baskervilles” that “seized small children like rag dolls 
and mauled them to death in <a href="https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,965065,00.html">a frenzy of bloodletting</a>.”

If a dog has “vicious propensities,” the owner is assumed to share in
 this projected violence, both legally and generally in public 
perception. And once deemed “contraband,” both property and people are 
at risk.  

This was evident in the much-publicized 2007 <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/306009/the-lost-dogs-by-jim-gorant/">indictment of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick</a> for running a dogfighting business called Bad Newz Kennels in Virginia. Even the <a href="https://www.humanesociety.org/">Humane Society of the United States</a> and <a href="https://www.peta.org/">People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals</a>
 – two of the nation’s leading animal welfare advocacy groups – argued 
that the 47 pit bulls recovered from the facility should be killed 
because they <a href="https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-95941sy0aug03-story.html">posed a threat to people and other animals</a>.

If not for the intervention of <a href="https://bestfriends.org/">Best Friends Animal Society</a>, Vick’s dogs would have been euthanized. As the film “<a href="http://www.championsdocumentary.com/the-dogs">Champions</a>” recounts, a <a href="https://www.animallaw.info/article/lessons-learned-acting-guardianspecial-master-bad-newz-kennels-case">court-appointed special master</a> determined each dog’s fate. Ultimately, nearly all of the dogs were successfully placed in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/12/21/michael-vick-dog-survivor-frodo-dies/">sanctuaries or adoptive homes</a>.

Pit bulls still suffer more than any other dogs from the fact that 
they are a type of dog, not a distinct breed. Once recognized by the 
American Kennel Club as an <a href="https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/american-staffordshire-terrier/">American Staffordshire terrier</a>, popularly known as an Amstaff, and registered with the United Kennel Club and the American Dog Breeders Association as an <a href="https://www.ukcdogs.com/american-pit-bull-terrier">American pit bull terrier</a>, now any dog characterized as a “pit bull type” can be <a href="https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/dayan-dead-dogs/">considered an outlaw</a> in many communities.

For example, in its 2012 <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-appeals/1599539.html">Tracey v. Solesky ruling</a>,
 the Maryland Court of Appeals modified the state’s common law in cases 
involving dog injuries. Any dog containing pit bull genes was 
“inherently dangerous” as a matter of law.

This subjected owners and landlords to what the courts call “<a href="https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/strict+liability">strict liability</a>.”
 As the court declared: “When an attack involves pit bulls, it is no 
longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are 
dangerous.”

Dissenting from the ruling, Judge Clayton Greene recognized the 
absurdity of the majority opinion’s “unworkable rule”: “How much ‘pit 
bull,’” he asked, “must there be in a dog to bring it within the strict 
liability edict?”

It’s equally unanswerable how to tell when a dog is a pit bull mix. 
From the shape of its head? Its stance? The way it looks at you?

Conundrums like these call into question statistics that show pit bulls to be <a href="https://www.coloradoinjurylaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/">more dangerous than other breeds</a>. These figures vary a great deal depending on their sources.

Any statistics about pit bull attacks depend on the definition of a 
pit bull – yet it’s really hard to get good dog bite data that <a href="https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2017-11-15/dangerous-dog-debate">accurately IDs the breed</a>.

Over the past decade, awareness has grown that breed-specific legislation <a href="https://www.avma.org/resources/pet-owners/why-breed-specific-legislation-not-answer">does not make the public safer</a> but does <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/09/01/pitbull-ban-lawsuit-prince-georges/">penalize responsible owners and their dogs</a>. Currently 21 states prohibit local government from enforcing breed-specific legislation or <a href="https://wagwalking.com/daily/what-states-allow-pit-bulls">naming specific breeds in dangerous dog laws</a>. Maryland passed a law reversing the Tracey ruling in 2014. Yet 15 states still <a href="https://dogsandclogs.com/states-with-pitbull-bans/#15_states_with_Pit_Bull_bans">allow local communities to enact breed-specific bans</a>.

Pit bulls demand a great deal more from humans than some dogs, but 
alongside their bracing way of being in the world, we humans learn 
another way of thinking and loving. Compared with many other breeds, 
they offer a more demanding but always affecting communion.

Colin Dayan is a Professor of English, Robert Penn Warren Professor in the Humanities, and Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/10/1666455734752.jpg" alt="Image courtesy of Pixabay" />
 <figcaption>Image courtesy of Pixabay</figcaption>
 </figure>By COLIN DAYAN <a href="https://theconversation.com/pit-bulls-went-from-americas-best-friend-to-public-enemy-now-theyre-slowly-coming-full-circle-192483">The Conversation</a>As recently as 50 years ago, the pit bull was America’s favorite dog.
 Pit bulls were everywhere. They were popular in advertising and used to
 promote the joys of pet-and-human friendship. <a href="https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/lifestyle/high-fidelity-nipper-the-rca-dog/">Nipper on the RCA Victor label</a>, <a href="https://www.kennel.com/our-gang-the-little-rascals-and-petey-the-pit-bull/">Pete the Pup</a> in the “Our Gang” comedy short films, and the flag-wrapped dog on a <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WW1_poster_featuring_a_pit_bull.jpg">classic World War I poster</a> all were pit bulls.With <a href="https://www.metlifepetinsurance.com/blog/breed-spotlights/national-pitbull-awareness-day/">National Pit Bull Awareness Day</a> celebrated on Oct. 26, it’s a fitting time to ask how these dogs came to be seen as a dangerous threat. Starting around 1990, multiple features of American life converged to
 inspire widespread bans that made pit bulls outlaws, called “<a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-11-13-mn-62013-story.html">four-legged guns</a>” or “<a href="https://www.deseret.com/1995/12/26/19211866/pit-bulls-are-lethal-ban-them">lethal weapons</a>.”
 The drivers included some dog attacks, excessive parental caution, 
fearful insurance companies and a tie to the sport of dog fighting.As a professor of <a href="http://colindayan.com/">humanities and law</a>,
 I have studied the legal history of slaves, vagrants, criminals, terror
 suspects and others deemed threats to civilized society. For my books “<a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691157870/the-law-is-a-white-dog">The Law is a White Dog</a>” and “<a href="http://cup.columbia.edu/book/with-dogs-at-the-edge-of-life/9780231167123">With Dogs at the Edge of Life</a>,” I explored human-dog relationships and how laws and regulations can deny equal protection to entire classes of beings. <figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/10/1666455864151.png" alt=" Stella, a pit bull owned by author Colin Dayan. Colin Dayan, CC BY-ND " />
 <figcaption> Stella, a pit bull owned by author Colin Dayan. Colin Dayan, CC BY-ND </figcaption>
 </figure>In my experience with these dogs – including nearly 12 years living 
with Stella, the daughter of champion fighting dogs – I have learned 
that pit bulls are not inherently dangerous. Like other dogs, they can 
become dangerous in certain situations, and at the hands of certain 
owners. But in my view, there is no defensible rationale for condemning 
not only all pit bulls, but any dog with a single pit bull gene, as <a href="https://www.forallanimals.org/pit-bull-terriers-breed-discriminatory-legislation-faqs/">some laws do</a>. I see such action as canine profiling, which recalls another legal fiction: the <a href="https://www.amacad.org/publication/one-drop-one-hate">taint or stain of blood</a> that ordained human degradation and race hatred in the United States. <figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/10/1666455907786.png" alt=" English artist Francis Barraud (1856-1924) painted his brother’s dog Nipper listening to the horn of an early phonograph in 1898. Victor Talking Machine Co. began using the symbol in its trademark, His Master’s Voice, in 1900. Wikipedia " />
 <figcaption> English artist Francis Barraud (1856-1924) painted his brother’s dog Nipper listening to the horn of an early phonograph in 1898. Victor Talking Machine Co. began using the symbol in its trademark, His Master’s Voice, in 1900. Wikipedia </figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Bred to fight</h2>The pit bull is strong. Its jaw grip is almost impossible to break. Bred over centuries to <a href="https://www.tuftsyourdog.com/dogtrainingandbehavior/dear-doctor-pit-bulls-and-locking-jaws/">bite and hold large animals</a> like bears and bulls around the face and head, it’s known as a “game dog.” Its bravery and strength <a href="https://pets.webmd.com/dogs/features/pit-bulls-safety">won’t allow it to give up</a>, no matter how long the struggle. It loves with the same strength; its loyalty remains <a href="https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls">the stuff of legend</a>. For decades pit bulls’ tenacity encouraged the sport of dogfighting, 
with the dogs “pitted” against each other. Fights often went to the 
death, and winning animals earned huge sums for those who bet on them. But betting on dogs is not a high-class sport. Dogs are not horses; 
they cost little to acquire and maintain. Pit bulls easily and quickly 
became associated with the poor, and <a href="https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/32171-25-1-third-articlepdf">especially with Black men</a>, in a narrative that connected pit bulls with gang violence and crime.That’s how prejudice works: The one-on-one <a href="https://drexel.edu/%7E/media/Files/law/law%20review/v10-3/Saucier%2010%20Drexel%20L%20Rev%20673.ashx">lamination of the pit bull onto the African American male</a> reduced people to their accessories. <figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/10/1666455968529.jpg" alt="Image courtesy of Pixabay" />
 <figcaption>Image courtesy of Pixabay</figcaption>
 </figure>Dogfighting was <a href="https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-dog-fighting">outlawed in all 50 states by 1976</a>, although illegal businesses persisted. Coverage of the practice spawned <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/pit-bull-ban-aggressive-dog-breed-bronwen-dickey">broad assertions</a>
 about the dogs that did the fighting. As breed bans proliferated, legal
 rulings proclaimed these dogs “dangerous to the safety or health of the
 community” and judged that “<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/166/698/">public interests demand that the worthless shall be exterminated</a>.”In 1987 Sports Illustrated put a pit bull, teeth bared, on its cover,
 with the headline “Beware of this Dog,” which it characterized as <a href="https://vault.si.com/vault/1987/07/27/the-pit-bull-friend-and-killer-is-the-pit-bull-a-fine-animal-as-its-admirers-claim-or-is-it-a-vicious-dog-unfit-for-society">born with “a will to kill</a>.”
 Time magazine published “Time Bombs on Legs” featuring this “vicious 
hound of the Baskervilles” that “seized small children like rag dolls 
and mauled them to death in <a href="https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,965065,00.html">a frenzy of bloodletting</a>.”<h2>Presumed vicious</h2>If a dog has “vicious propensities,” the owner is assumed to share in
 this projected violence, both legally and generally in public 
perception. And once deemed “contraband,” both property and people are 
at risk. This was evident in the much-publicized 2007 <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/306009/the-lost-dogs-by-jim-gorant/">indictment of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick</a> for running a dogfighting business called Bad Newz Kennels in Virginia. Even the <a href="https://www.humanesociety.org/">Humane Society of the United States</a> and <a href="https://www.peta.org/">People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals</a>
 – two of the nation’s leading animal welfare advocacy groups – argued 
that the 47 pit bulls recovered from the facility should be killed 
because they <a href="https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-95941sy0aug03-story.html">posed a threat to people and other animals</a>.If not for the intervention of <a href="https://bestfriends.org/">Best Friends Animal Society</a>, Vick’s dogs would have been euthanized. As the film “<a href="http://www.championsdocumentary.com/the-dogs">Champions</a>” recounts, a <a href="https://www.animallaw.info/article/lessons-learned-acting-guardianspecial-master-bad-newz-kennels-case">court-appointed special master</a> determined each dog’s fate. Ultimately, nearly all of the dogs were successfully placed in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/12/21/michael-vick-dog-survivor-frodo-dies/">sanctuaries or adoptive homes</a>.<figure>
 <iframe width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5GmJNTRhafI"></iframe>
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Debating breed bans</h2>Pit bulls still suffer more than any other dogs from the fact that 
they are a type of dog, not a distinct breed. Once recognized by the 
American Kennel Club as an <a href="https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/american-staffordshire-terrier/">American Staffordshire terrier</a>, popularly known as an Amstaff, and registered with the United Kennel Club and the American Dog Breeders Association as an <a href="https://www.ukcdogs.com/american-pit-bull-terrier">American pit bull terrier</a>, now any dog characterized as a “pit bull type” can be <a href="https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/dayan-dead-dogs/">considered an outlaw</a> in many communities. For example, in its 2012 <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-appeals/1599539.html">Tracey v. Solesky ruling</a>,
 the Maryland Court of Appeals modified the state’s common law in cases 
involving dog injuries. Any dog containing pit bull genes was 
“inherently dangerous” as a matter of law. This subjected owners and landlords to what the courts call “<a href="https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/strict+liability">strict liability</a>.”
 As the court declared: “When an attack involves pit bulls, it is no 
longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are 
dangerous.” Dissenting from the ruling, Judge Clayton Greene recognized the 
absurdity of the majority opinion’s “unworkable rule”: “How much ‘pit 
bull,’” he asked, “must there be in a dog to bring it within the strict 
liability edict?”It’s equally unanswerable how to tell when a dog is a pit bull mix. 
From the shape of its head? Its stance? The way it looks at you?Conundrums like these call into question statistics that show pit bulls to be <a href="https://www.coloradoinjurylaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/">more dangerous than other breeds</a>. These figures vary a great deal depending on their sources. Any statistics about pit bull attacks depend on the definition of a 
pit bull – yet it’s really hard to get good dog bite data that <a href="https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2017-11-15/dangerous-dog-debate">accurately IDs the breed</a>. <figure>
 <iframe width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4uEpEAD23Dc"></iframe>
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>Over the past decade, awareness has grown that breed-specific legislation <a href="https://www.avma.org/resources/pet-owners/why-breed-specific-legislation-not-answer">does not make the public safer</a> but does <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/09/01/pitbull-ban-lawsuit-prince-georges/">penalize responsible owners and their dogs</a>. Currently 21 states prohibit local government from enforcing breed-specific legislation or <a href="https://wagwalking.com/daily/what-states-allow-pit-bulls">naming specific breeds in dangerous dog laws</a>. Maryland passed a law reversing the Tracey ruling in 2014. Yet 15 states still <a href="https://dogsandclogs.com/states-with-pitbull-bans/#15_states_with_Pit_Bull_bans">allow local communities to enact breed-specific bans</a>. Pit bulls demand a great deal more from humans than some dogs, but 
alongside their bracing way of being in the world, we humans learn 
another way of thinking and loving. Compared with many other breeds, 
they offer a more demanding but always affecting communion.Colin Dayan is a Professor of English, Robert Penn Warren Professor in the Humanities, and Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/10/1666456414214.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure><div><iframe src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192483/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important" referrerpolicy="no-referrer-when-downgrade"></iframe></div>

🎥 Pit bulls: Coming full circle from 'public enemy' status

ST. LOUIS (AP) — A federal appeals court late Friday issued an administrative stay temporarily blocking President Joe Biden's plan to cancel billions of dollars in federal student loans.

(Click below to&nbsp; watch the President deliver remarks Friday on student debt relief)

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the stay while it considers a motion from six Republican-led states to block the loan cancellation program. The stay ordered the Biden administration not to act on the program while it considers the appeal.

The order came just days after people began applying for loan forgiveness.

It’s unclear what the decision means for the 22 million borrowers who already applied for the relief. The Biden administration had promised not to clear any debt before Oct. 23 as it battled the legal challenges, but the soonest it was expected to begin erasing debt was mid-November.

The crucial question now is whether the issue will be resolved before Jan. 1, when payments on federal student loans are expected to restart after being paused during the pandemic. Millions of Americans were expected to get their debt canceled entirely under Biden’s plan, but they now face uncertainty about whether they will need to start making payments in January.

Biden has said his previous extension of the payment pause would be the final one, but economists worry that many Americans may not have regained financial footing after the upheaval of the pandemic. If borrowers who were expecting debt cancellation are asked to make payments in January, there’s fear that many could fall behind on the bills and default on their loans.

A notice of appeal to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was filed late Thursday, hours after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-education-lawsuits-st-louis-missouri-a54a892e45f80c5329d45b8fe587f267">U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey in St. Louis ruled</a>&nbsp;that since the states of Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina failed to establish standing, “the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/st-louis-missouri-kansas-nebraska-education-1818db4383863111b0263125d2eed73c">Court lacks jurisdiction</a>&nbsp;to hear this case.”

Separately, the six states also asked the district court for an injunction prohibiting the administration from implementing the debt cancellation plan until the appeals process plays out.

Speaking at Delaware State University, a historically Black university where the majority of students receive federal Pell Grants,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-dover-delaware-pell-grant-business-6519cd6cb024f81012359bc47a174ee6">Biden on Friday said</a>&nbsp;nearly 22 million people have applied for the loan relief in the week since his administration made its online application available.

The plan, announced in August, would cancel $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, will get an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.

The Congressional Budget Office has said the program will cost about $400 billion over the next three decades. James Campbell, an attorney for the Nebraska attorney general’s office, told Autrey at an Oct. 12 hearing that the administration is acting outside its authorities in a way that will cost states millions of dollars.

The cancellation applies to federal student loans used to attend undergraduate and graduate school, along with Parent Plus loans. Current college students qualify if their loans were disbursed before July 1. The plan makes 43 million borrowers eligible for some debt forgiveness, with 20 million who could get their debt erased entirely, according to the administration.

The announcement immediately became a major political issue ahead of the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/2022-midterm-elections">November midterm elections</a>.

Conservative attorneys, Republican lawmakers and business-oriented groups have asserted that Biden overstepped his authority in taking such sweeping action without the assent of Congress. They called it an unfair government giveaway for relatively affluent people at the expense of taxpayers who didn’t pursue higher education.

Many Democratic lawmakers facing tough reelection contests have distanced themselves from the plan.

Biden on Friday blasted Republicans who have criticized his relief program, saying “their outrage is wrong and it’s hypocritical.” He noted that some Republican officials had debt and pandemic relief loans forgiven.

<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-lawsuits-covid-missouri-862d783188de45b698c54b00820d3616">The six states sued in September</a>. Lawyers for the administration countered that the Department of Education has “broad authority to manage the federal student financial aid programs.” A court filing stated that the 2003 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, allows the secretary of education to waive or modify terms of federal student loans in times of war or national emergency.

“COVID-19 is such an emergency,” the filing stated.

The HEROES Act was enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to help members of the military. The Justice Department says the law allows Biden to reduce or erase student loan debt during a national emergency. Republicans argue the administration is misinterpreting the law, in part because the pandemic no longer qualifies as a national emergency.

Justice Department attorney Brian Netter told Autrey at the Oct. 12 hearing that fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is still rippling. He said student loan defaults have skyrocketed over the past 2 1/2 years.

Other lawsuits also have sought to stop the program. Earlier Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett&nbsp;<a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/justice-barrett-rejects-appeal-over-biden-student-debt-plan/">rejected an appeal</a>&nbsp;from a Wisconsin taxpayers group seeking to stop the debt cancellation program.

Barrett, who oversees emergency appeals from Wisconsin and neighboring states, did not comment in turning away the appeal from the Brown County Taxpayers Association. The group wrote in its Supreme Court filing that it needed an emergency order because the administration could begin canceling outstanding student debt as soon as Sunday.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/10/1666387946952.png" alt="Speaking at Delaware State University, a historically Black university where the majority of students receive federal Pell Grants,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-dover-delaware-pell-grant-business-6519cd6cb024f81012359bc47a174ee6">Biden on Friday said</a>&nbsp;nearly 22 million people have applied for the loan relief in the week since his administration made its online application available.- White House photo" />
 <figcaption>Speaking at Delaware State University, a historically Black university where the majority of students receive federal Pell Grants,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-dover-delaware-pell-grant-business-6519cd6cb024f81012359bc47a174ee6">Biden on Friday said</a>&nbsp;nearly 22 million people have applied for the loan relief in the week since his administration made its online application available.- White House photo</figcaption>
 </figure>ST. LOUIS (AP) — A federal appeals court late Friday issued an administrative stay temporarily blocking President Joe Biden's plan to cancel billions of dollars in federal student loans.(Click below to&nbsp; watch the President deliver remarks Friday on student debt relief)<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sI6G66PtJZY?start=138" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the stay while it considers a motion from six Republican-led states to block the loan cancellation program. The stay ordered the Biden administration not to act on the program while it considers the appeal.The order came just days after people began applying for loan forgiveness.It’s unclear what the decision means for the 22 million borrowers who already applied for the relief. The Biden administration had promised not to clear any debt before Oct. 23 as it battled the legal challenges, but the soonest it was expected to begin erasing debt was mid-November.The crucial question now is whether the issue will be resolved before Jan. 1, when payments on federal student loans are expected to restart after being paused during the pandemic. Millions of Americans were expected to get their debt canceled entirely under Biden’s plan, but they now face uncertainty about whether they will need to start making payments in January.Biden has said his previous extension of the payment pause would be the final one, but economists worry that many Americans may not have regained financial footing after the upheaval of the pandemic. If borrowers who were expecting debt cancellation are asked to make payments in January, there’s fear that many could fall behind on the bills and default on their loans.A notice of appeal to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was filed late Thursday, hours after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-education-lawsuits-st-louis-missouri-a54a892e45f80c5329d45b8fe587f267">U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey in St. Louis ruled</a>&nbsp;that since the states of Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina failed to establish standing, “the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/st-louis-missouri-kansas-nebraska-education-1818db4383863111b0263125d2eed73c">Court lacks jurisdiction</a>&nbsp;to hear this case.”Separately, the six states also asked the district court for an injunction prohibiting the administration from implementing the debt cancellation plan until the appeals process plays out.Speaking at Delaware State University, a historically Black university where the majority of students receive federal Pell Grants,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-dover-delaware-pell-grant-business-6519cd6cb024f81012359bc47a174ee6">Biden on Friday said</a>&nbsp;nearly 22 million people have applied for the loan relief in the week since his administration made its online application available.The plan, announced in August, would cancel $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, will get an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.The Congressional Budget Office has said the program will cost about $400 billion over the next three decades. James Campbell, an attorney for the Nebraska attorney general’s office, told Autrey at an Oct. 12 hearing that the administration is acting outside its authorities in a way that will cost states millions of dollars.The cancellation applies to federal student loans used to attend undergraduate and graduate school, along with Parent Plus loans. Current college students qualify if their loans were disbursed before July 1. The plan makes 43 million borrowers eligible for some debt forgiveness, with 20 million who could get their debt erased entirely, according to the administration.The announcement immediately became a major political issue ahead of the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/2022-midterm-elections">November midterm elections</a>.Conservative attorneys, Republican lawmakers and business-oriented groups have asserted that Biden overstepped his authority in taking such sweeping action without the assent of Congress. They called it an unfair government giveaway for relatively affluent people at the expense of taxpayers who didn’t pursue higher education.Many Democratic lawmakers facing tough reelection contests have distanced themselves from the plan.Biden on Friday blasted Republicans who have criticized his relief program, saying “their outrage is wrong and it’s hypocritical.” He noted that some Republican officials had debt and pandemic relief loans forgiven.<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-lawsuits-covid-missouri-862d783188de45b698c54b00820d3616">The six states sued in September</a>. Lawyers for the administration countered that the Department of Education has “broad authority to manage the federal student financial aid programs.” A court filing stated that the 2003 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, allows the secretary of education to waive or modify terms of federal student loans in times of war or national emergency.“COVID-19 is such an emergency,” the filing stated.The HEROES Act was enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to help members of the military. The Justice Department says the law allows Biden to reduce or erase student loan debt during a national emergency. Republicans argue the administration is misinterpreting the law, in part because the pandemic no longer qualifies as a national emergency.Justice Department attorney Brian Netter told Autrey at the Oct. 12 hearing that fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is still rippling. He said student loan defaults have skyrocketed over the past 2 1/2 years.Other lawsuits also have sought to stop the program. Earlier Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett&nbsp;<a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/justice-barrett-rejects-appeal-over-biden-student-debt-plan/">rejected an appeal</a>&nbsp;from a Wisconsin taxpayers group seeking to stop the debt cancellation program.Barrett, who oversees emergency appeals from Wisconsin and neighboring states, did not comment in turning away the appeal from the Brown County Taxpayers Association. The group wrote in its Supreme Court filing that it needed an emergency order because the administration could begin canceling outstanding student debt as soon as Sunday.

🎥Court temporarily blocks Biden's student loan forgiveness

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House committee investigating the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol</a>&nbsp;formally issued an&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">extraordinary subpoena to Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;on Friday, demanding testimony from the former president who lawmakers say “personally orchestrated” a multi-part effort to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/new-mexico-election-security-besieged-county-5e084e84cf25f96364f5afa445968455">overturn the results of the 2020 election</a>.

<a href="https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20221021%20J6%20Cmte%20Subpeona%20to%20Donald%20Trump.pdf">CLICK HERE to read</a> the subpoena

<a href="https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/27/27b7896f-01c5-4609-93c7-742e5cb22e96/830-am-final-january-6th-committee-letter14446.pdf?utm_medium=email_hf&amp;utm_source=ncl__&amp;utm_campaign=20221014___sa&amp;utm_content=__6167&amp;_nlid=test123&amp;_nhids=TEST">CLICK here to read</a>&nbsp;the letter Trump sent to the Jan. 6 committee

The nine-member panel issued&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-congress-donald-trump-government-and-politics-subpoenas-02c10c186a0c92667ebe805f9ffe0b52">a letter to Trump's lawyers</a>&nbsp;saying he must testify, either at the Capitol or by videoconference, “beginning on or about” Nov. 14 and continuing for multiple days if necessary.

The letter also outlined a sweeping request for documents, including personal communications between Trump and members of Congress as well as extremist groups. Those are to be turned in by Nov. 4, although the committee's deadlines are generally subject to negotiation.

“We recognize that a subpoena to a former president is a significant and historic action," Chairman Bennie Thompson and Vice Chair Liz Cheney wrote in the letter to Trump. “We do not take this action lightly.”

The panel rooted its action in history, listing past presidents from John Quincy Adams to Gerald Ford, who testified before Congress after leaving office — and noted that even sitting presidents have responded to congressional subpoenas.

It is unclear how Trump and his legal team will respond. He could comply or negotiate with the committee, announce he will defy the subpoena or ignore it altogether. He could also go to court and try to stop it.

“We understand that, once again, flouting norms and appropriate and customary process, the Committee has publicly released a copy of its subpoena," David Warrington, a partner with the Dhillon Law Group, which is representing Trump, said in a statement late Friday. "As with any similar matter, we will review and analyze it, and will respond as appropriate to this unprecedented action.”

The subpoena is the latest and most striking escalation in the House committee’s 15-month investigation of the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, bringing members of the panel into direct conflict with the man they have investigated from afar through the testimony of aides, allies and associates.

In the letter, the committee wrote about the “overwhelming evidence” it has assembled, showing Trump “personally orchestrated” an effort to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election, including by spreading false allegations of widespread voter fraud, “attempting to corrupt” the Justice Department and pressuring state officials, members of Congress and his own vice president to change the results.

“In short, you were at the center of the first and only effort by any U.S. President to overturn an election and obstruct the peaceful transition of power, ultimately culminating in a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-government-and-politics-prisons-journalists-d9d80376eb250f3d4a2855882d96cbdd">bloody attack on our own Capitol</a>&nbsp;and on the Congress itself,” Thompson and Cheney said.

Lawmakers say key details about what Trump was doing and saying during the siege remain unknown. According to the committee, the only person who can fill the gaps is Trump himself.

The panel — comprised of seven Democrats and two Republicans — approved the subpoena for Trump in a surprise vote last week. Every member voted in support.

The subpoena calls for testimony about Trump's dealings with several former aides and associates who have asserted their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination to the committee, including Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark and Kelli Ward.

“These Fifth Amendment assertions — made by persons with whom you interacted — related directly to you and your conduct," the subpoena letter reads. "They provide specific examples where your truthful testimony under oath with be important.”

The committee also made 19 requests for documents and communication — including for any messages Trump sent on the encrypted messaging app Signal “or any other means” to members of Congress and others about the stunning events of the Capitol attack.

The scope of the committee's request is expansive — pursuing documents from Sept. 1, 2020, two months before the election, to the present on the president’s communications with the groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys — as the panel looks to compile a historical record of the run-up to the Capitol attack and then the aftermath.

But there remains little legal advantage for Trump to cooperate with the committee as he&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-donald-trump-georgia-crime-congress-e285497c6a96f82ed08a0d561316029c">already faces other civil and criminal legal battles</a>&nbsp;in various jurisdictions, including over his family business in New York and the handling of presidential records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

It’s possible his lawyers could simply run out the clock on the subpoena if they go to court to try to squash it as the committee is required to finish its work by the end of the year.

“It seems improbable to me that this could be litigated to conclusion in the time remaining to the Committee in this Congress,” Peter Keisler, who served as acting attorney general under President George W. Bush, told The Associated Press.

There is ample precedent for Congress to seek testimony from a former president. Over the past century and a half, at least six current and former presidents have testified on Capitol Hill, including John Tyler and Quincy Adams after both were subpoenaed in 1848.

This could be Trump’s chance to respond directly to the committee, to tell his version of events, but it’s unlikely the defeated president would take it. He has ridiculed the panel and its work, preferring to share his views on his own terms. And testifying under oath could create legal exposure in the several other investigations he is caught up in.

If Trump refuses to comply with the subpoena, the panel will have to weigh the practical and political implications of holding him in contempt of Congress.

“That’s a bridge we cross if we have to get there,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a Republican member of the committee, told ABC on Sunday. “He’s made it clear he has nothing to hide, is what he says. So, he should come in.”

If the full House voted to recommend a contempt charge against Trump, the Justice Department would then review the case and decide on any further steps.

Other witnesses have faced legal consequences for defying the committee, including close Trump ally&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-steve-bannon-congress-donald-trump-sentencing-36d412eba9e1609a030859852378ae3d">Steve Bannon, who was convicted of contempt in July and was sentenced Friday to four months behind bars.</a>&nbsp;But holding a former president in contempt would be another matter.

The subpoena to Trump comes as the committee is looking to wrap up its investigative work and compile a final, comprehensive report that will be published by the end of the year. Investigators have interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses, including many of Trump’s top White House aides, and obtained tens of thousands of pages of documents since the committee was formed in July 2021.

But the panel is authorized only through this Congress, which ends on Jan. 3. That means members have only a few short months — amid a hectic lame-duck legislative period after the midterm elections — to refine their historical record of the worst attack on the Capitol in two centuries. Whether that will include the testimony from the 45th president of the United States remains to be seen.

The committee ended its subpoena to Trump by quoting one of his predecessors: "President (Theodore) Roosevelt explained during his congressional testimony, ‘an ex-President is merely a citizen of the United States, like any other citizen, and it is his plain duty to try to help this committee or respond to its invitation.’”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/10/1666385163554.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The House committee investigating the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol</a>&nbsp;formally issued an&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">extraordinary subpoena to Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;on Friday, demanding testimony from the former president who lawmakers say “personally orchestrated” a multi-part effort to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/new-mexico-election-security-besieged-county-5e084e84cf25f96364f5afa445968455">overturn the results of the 2020 election</a>.<a href="https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20221021%20J6%20Cmte%20Subpeona%20to%20Donald%20Trump.pdf">CLICK HERE to read</a> the subpoena<a href="https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/27/27b7896f-01c5-4609-93c7-742e5cb22e96/830-am-final-january-6th-committee-letter14446.pdf?utm_medium=email_hf&amp;utm_source=ncl__&amp;utm_campaign=20221014___sa&amp;utm_content=__6167&amp;_nlid=test123&amp;_nhids=TEST">CLICK here to read</a>&nbsp;the letter Trump sent to the Jan. 6 committeeThe nine-member panel issued&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-congress-donald-trump-government-and-politics-subpoenas-02c10c186a0c92667ebe805f9ffe0b52">a letter to Trump's lawyers</a>&nbsp;saying he must testify, either at the Capitol or by videoconference, “beginning on or about” Nov. 14 and continuing for multiple days if necessary.The letter also outlined a sweeping request for documents, including personal communications between Trump and members of Congress as well as extremist groups. Those are to be turned in by Nov. 4, although the committee's deadlines are generally subject to negotiation.“We recognize that a subpoena to a former president is a significant and historic action," Chairman Bennie Thompson and Vice Chair Liz Cheney wrote in the letter to Trump. “We do not take this action lightly.”The panel rooted its action in history, listing past presidents from John Quincy Adams to Gerald Ford, who testified before Congress after leaving office — and noted that even sitting presidents have responded to congressional subpoenas.It is unclear how Trump and his legal team will respond. He could comply or negotiate with the committee, announce he will defy the subpoena or ignore it altogether. He could also go to court and try to stop it.“We understand that, once again, flouting norms and appropriate and customary process, the Committee has publicly released a copy of its subpoena," David Warrington, a partner with the Dhillon Law Group, which is representing Trump, said in a statement late Friday. "As with any similar matter, we will review and analyze it, and will respond as appropriate to this unprecedented action.”<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/10/1665779973146.png" alt="Former President Trump as shown from Dec. 2, 2020, in the Jan. 6 committee hearing video on Oct. 13." />
 <figcaption>Former President Trump as shown from Dec. 2, 2020, in the Jan. 6 committee hearing video on Oct. 13.</figcaption>
 </figure>The subpoena is the latest and most striking escalation in the House committee’s 15-month investigation of the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, bringing members of the panel into direct conflict with the man they have investigated from afar through the testimony of aides, allies and associates.In the letter, the committee wrote about the “overwhelming evidence” it has assembled, showing Trump “personally orchestrated” an effort to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election, including by spreading false allegations of widespread voter fraud, “attempting to corrupt” the Justice Department and pressuring state officials, members of Congress and his own vice president to change the results.“In short, you were at the center of the first and only effort by any U.S. President to overturn an election and obstruct the peaceful transition of power, ultimately culminating in a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-government-and-politics-prisons-journalists-d9d80376eb250f3d4a2855882d96cbdd">bloody attack on our own Capitol</a>&nbsp;and on the Congress itself,” Thompson and Cheney said.Lawmakers say key details about what Trump was doing and saying during the siege remain unknown. According to the committee, the only person who can fill the gaps is Trump himself.The panel — comprised of seven Democrats and two Republicans — approved the subpoena for Trump in a surprise vote last week. Every member voted in support.The subpoena calls for testimony about Trump's dealings with several former aides and associates who have asserted their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination to the committee, including Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark and Kelli Ward.“These Fifth Amendment assertions — made by persons with whom you interacted — related directly to you and your conduct," the subpoena letter reads. "They provide specific examples where your truthful testimony under oath with be important.”The committee also made 19 requests for documents and communication — including for any messages Trump sent on the encrypted messaging app Signal “or any other means” to members of Congress and others about the stunning events of the Capitol attack.The scope of the committee's request is expansive — pursuing documents from Sept. 1, 2020, two months before the election, to the present on the president’s communications with the groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys — as the panel looks to compile a historical record of the run-up to the Capitol attack and then the aftermath.But there remains little legal advantage for Trump to cooperate with the committee as he&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-donald-trump-georgia-crime-congress-e285497c6a96f82ed08a0d561316029c">already faces other civil and criminal legal battles</a>&nbsp;in various jurisdictions, including over his family business in New York and the handling of presidential records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.It’s possible his lawyers could simply run out the clock on the subpoena if they go to court to try to squash it as the committee is required to finish its work by the end of the year.“It seems improbable to me that this could be litigated to conclusion in the time remaining to the Committee in this Congress,” Peter Keisler, who served as acting attorney general under President George W. Bush, told The Associated Press.There is ample precedent for Congress to seek testimony from a former president. Over the past century and a half, at least six current and former presidents have testified on Capitol Hill, including John Tyler and Quincy Adams after both were subpoenaed in 1848.This could be Trump’s chance to respond directly to the committee, to tell his version of events, but it’s unlikely the defeated president would take it. He has ridiculed the panel and its work, preferring to share his views on his own terms. And testifying under oath could create legal exposure in the several other investigations he is caught up in.If Trump refuses to comply with the subpoena, the panel will have to weigh the practical and political implications of holding him in contempt of Congress.“That’s a bridge we cross if we have to get there,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a Republican member of the committee, told ABC on Sunday. “He’s made it clear he has nothing to hide, is what he says. So, he should come in.”If the full House voted to recommend a contempt charge against Trump, the Justice Department would then review the case and decide on any further steps.Other witnesses have faced legal consequences for defying the committee, including close Trump ally&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-steve-bannon-congress-donald-trump-sentencing-36d412eba9e1609a030859852378ae3d">Steve Bannon, who was convicted of contempt in July and was sentenced Friday to four months behind bars.</a>&nbsp;But holding a former president in contempt would be another matter.The subpoena to Trump comes as the committee is looking to wrap up its investigative work and compile a final, comprehensive report that will be published by the end of the year. Investigators have interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses, including many of Trump’s top White House aides, and obtained tens of thousands of pages of documents since the committee was formed in July 2021.But the panel is authorized only through this Congress, which ends on Jan. 3. That means members have only a few short months — amid a hectic lame-duck legislative period after the midterm elections — to refine their historical record of the worst attack on the Capitol in two centuries. Whether that will include the testimony from the 45th president of the United States remains to be seen.The committee ended its subpoena to Trump by quoting one of his predecessors: "President (Theodore) Roosevelt explained during his congressional testimony, ‘an ex-President is merely a citizen of the United States, like any other citizen, and it is his plain duty to try to help this committee or respond to its invitation.’”

Read the formal subpoena Jan. 6 panel issued to Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) —Pfizer will charge $110 to $130 for a dose of its COVID-19 vaccine once the U.S. government stops buying the shots, but the drugmaker says it expects many people will continue receiving it for free.

Pfizer executives said the commercial pricing for adult doses could start early next year, depending on when the government phases out its program of buying and distributing the shots.

The drugmaker said it expects that people with private health insurance or coverage through public programs like Medicare or Medicaid will pay nothing. The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover many recommended vaccines without charging any out-of-pocket expenses.

A spokesman said the company also has an income-based assistance program that helps eligible U.S. residents with no insurance get the shots.

The price would make the two-dose vaccine more expensive for cash-paying customers than annual flu shots. Those can range in price from around $50 to $95, depending on the type, according to CVS Health, which runs one of the nation's biggest drugstore chains.

A Pfizer executive said Thursday that the price reflects increased costs for switching to single-dose vials and commercial distribution. The executive, Angela Lukin, said the price was well below the thresholds “for what would be considered a highly effective vaccine.”

The drugmaker&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-vaccine-coronavirus-health-business-3d281d0a09f18c5a671ca030b332a7bc">said</a>&nbsp;last year that it was charging the U.S. $19.50 per dose, and that it had three tiers of pricing globally, depending on each country's financial situation. In June, the company said the U.S. government would buy an additional 105 million doses in a deal that amounted to roughly $30 per shot. The government has the option to purchase more doses after that.

Pfizer’s two-shot vaccine debuted in late 2020 and has been the most common preventive shot used to fight COVID-19 in the U.S.

More than 375 million doses of the original vaccine, which Pfizer developed with the German drugmaker BioNTech, have been distributed in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That doesn’t count another 12 million doses of an updated booster that was approved earlier this year.

The vaccine brought in $36.78 billion in revenue last year for Pfizer and was the drugmaker’s top-selling product.

Analysts predict that it will rack up another $32 billion this year, according to FactSet. But they also expect sales to fall rapidly after that.

More than 90% of the adult U.S. population has already received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to the CDC. But only about half that population has also received a booster dose.

WASHINGTON (AP) —Pfizer will charge $110 to $130 for a dose of its COVID-19 vaccine once the U.S. government stops buying the shots, but the drugmaker says it expects many people will continue receiving it for free.Pfizer executives said the commercial pricing for adult doses could start early next year, depending on when the government phases out its program of buying and distributing the shots.The drugmaker said it expects that people with private health insurance or coverage through public programs like Medicare or Medicaid will pay nothing. The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover many recommended vaccines without charging any out-of-pocket expenses.A spokesman said the company also has an income-based assistance program that helps eligible U.S. residents with no insurance get the shots.The price would make the two-dose vaccine more expensive for cash-paying customers than annual flu shots. Those can range in price from around $50 to $95, depending on the type, according to CVS Health, which runs one of the nation's biggest drugstore chains.A Pfizer executive said Thursday that the price reflects increased costs for switching to single-dose vials and commercial distribution. The executive, Angela Lukin, said the price was well below the thresholds “for what would be considered a highly effective vaccine.”The drugmaker&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-vaccine-coronavirus-health-business-3d281d0a09f18c5a671ca030b332a7bc">said</a>&nbsp;last year that it was charging the U.S. $19.50 per dose, and that it had three tiers of pricing globally, depending on each country's financial situation. In June, the company said the U.S. government would buy an additional 105 million doses in a deal that amounted to roughly $30 per shot. The government has the option to purchase more doses after that.Pfizer’s two-shot vaccine debuted in late 2020 and has been the most common preventive shot used to fight COVID-19 in the U.S.More than 375 million doses of the original vaccine, which Pfizer developed with the German drugmaker BioNTech, have been distributed in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.That doesn’t count another 12 million doses of an updated booster that was approved earlier this year.The vaccine brought in $36.78 billion in revenue last year for Pfizer and was the drugmaker’s top-selling product.Analysts predict that it will rack up another $32 billion this year, according to FactSet. But they also expect sales to fall rapidly after that.More than 90% of the adult U.S. population has already received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to the CDC. But only about half that population has also received a booster dose.

Pfizer: COVID-19 vaccine will cost $110-$130 per dose

ST. LOUIS (AP) — Attorneys for six Republican-led states are asking a federal appeals court to reconsider their effort to block the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-biden-plan-d9c8e18774a744187c9af634bf4eb728">Biden administration's program</a>&nbsp;to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loan debt.

A notice of appeal to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was filed&nbsp; hours after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-education-lawsuits-st-louis-missouri-a54a892e45f80c5329d45b8fe587f267">U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey in St. Louis ruled</a>&nbsp;that since the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa and South Carolina failed to establish standing, “the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/st-louis-missouri-kansas-nebraska-education-1818db4383863111b0263125d2eed73c">Court lacks jurisdiction</a>&nbsp;to hear this case.”

President Joe Biden on Monday&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-application-ea79c56a5072976067a94436b4fc9a45">officially launched the application process</a>&nbsp;for the debt cancellation program and announced that 8 million borrowers had already applied for loan relief during the federal government’s soft launch period last weekend. Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-business-government-and-politics-covid-d36ac4d38bcebb8a300d3fa1f1381623">was scheduled to discuss the program Friday</a>&nbsp;in a speech at Delaware State University.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/10/1666046738612.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>ST. LOUIS (AP) — Attorneys for six Republican-led states are asking a federal appeals court to reconsider their effort to block the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-biden-plan-d9c8e18774a744187c9af634bf4eb728">Biden administration's program</a>&nbsp;to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loan debt.A notice of appeal to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was filed&nbsp; hours after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-education-lawsuits-st-louis-missouri-a54a892e45f80c5329d45b8fe587f267">U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey in St. Louis ruled</a>&nbsp;that since the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa and South Carolina failed to establish standing, “the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/st-louis-missouri-kansas-nebraska-education-1818db4383863111b0263125d2eed73c">Court lacks jurisdiction</a>&nbsp;to hear this case.”Separately, the six states also asked the district court for an injunction prohibiting the administration from implementing the debt cancellation plan until the appeals process plays out.President Joe Biden on Monday&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-application-ea79c56a5072976067a94436b4fc9a45">officially launched the application process</a>&nbsp;for the debt cancellation program and announced that 8 million borrowers had already applied for loan relief during the federal government’s soft launch period last weekend. Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-business-government-and-politics-covid-d36ac4d38bcebb8a300d3fa1f1381623">was scheduled to discuss the program Friday</a>&nbsp;in a speech at Delaware State University.The plan, announced in August, would cancel $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, will get an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.The Congressional Budget Office has said the program will cost about $400 billion over the next three decades. James Campbell, an attorney for the Nebraska attorney general’s office, told Autrey at an Oct. 12 hearing that the administration is acting outside its authorities in a way that will cost states millions of dollars.The cancellation applies to federal student loans used to attend undergraduate and graduate school, along with Parent Plus loans. Current college students qualify if their loans were disbursed before July 1. The plan makes 43 million borrowers eligible for some debt forgiveness, with 20 million who could get their debt erased entirely, according to the administration.The announcement immediately became a major political issue ahead of the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/2022-midterm-elections">November midterm elections</a>.Conservative attorneys, Republican lawmakers and business-oriented groups have asserted that Biden overstepped his authority in taking such sweeping action without the assent of Congress. They called it an unfair government giveaway for relatively affluent people at the expense of taxpayers who didn’t pursue higher education.Many Democratic lawmakers facing tough reelection contests have distanced themselves from the plan.<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-lawsuits-covid-missouri-862d783188de45b698c54b00820d3616">The six states sued in September</a>. Lawyers for the administration countered that the Department of Education has “broad authority to manage the federal student financial aid programs.” A court filing stated that the 2003 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, allows the secretary of education to waive or modify terms of federal student loans in times of war or national emergency.“COVID-19 is such an emergency,” the filing stated.The HEROES Act was enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to help members of the military. The Justice Department says the law allows Biden to reduce or erase student loan debt during a national emergency. Republicans argue the administration is misinterpreting the law, in part because the pandemic no longer qualifies as a national emergency.Justice Department attorney Brian Netter told Autrey at the Oct. 12 hearing that fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is still rippling. He said student loan defaults have skyrocketed over the past 2 1/2 years.Other lawsuits also have sought to stop the program. Earlier Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett&nbsp;<a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/justice-barrett-rejects-appeal-over-biden-student-debt-plan/">rejected an appeal</a>&nbsp;from a Wisconsin taxpayers group seeking to stop the debt cancellation program.Barrett, who oversees emergency appeals from Wisconsin and neighboring states, did not comment in turning away the appeal from the Brown County Taxpayers Association. The group wrote in its Supreme Court filing that it needed an emergency order because the administration could begin canceling outstanding student debt as soon as Sunday.

Neb., 5 other states appeal dismissal of suit over student loan relief

By AARON SANDERFORD <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/10/21/rural-sheriffs-race-roils-butler-county/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

DAVID CITY, Nebraska — Butler County 
Sheriff Tom Dion knows what it’s like to run against a sheriff and win. 
In 2018, a year after leaving his job as a sergeant, Dion beat his old 
boss, Sheriff Marcus Siebken.

Four years later, Dion faces a 
challenge from within his own ranks. Deputy Marla Schnell is running 
against him, and most of Dion’s deputies and staff back Schnell, not the
 sheriff.

Dion defended his record last week, 
saying he’s proudest of reviving the anti-drug DARE program in Butler 
County schools and signing new contracts to enforce local ordinances in 
Surprise, Octavia and Brainard.

He said he is dealing with “a few 
employees making trouble.” But Dion’s critics and documents obtained by 
the Nebraska Examiner show more to his troubles than that.&nbsp;

Schnell said she is running because 
too many of the county’s experienced deputies have left. She and others 
in the office said the county risks more departures if Dion wins 
re-election.

Over the past year, Butler County has
 lost four of its nine deputies, the Examiner has learned. One was 
fired. Three left on their own. All were replaced by new hires.&nbsp;&nbsp;

People who have left and several who 
are considering leaving said Dion plays favorites with who gets paid how
 much, how cruisers get fixed and who gets assigned what shifts.&nbsp;

They said he rewards loyalty over performance, which Dion denies.

Interviews with 11 current and former
 employees paint a picture of an office with workers on edge, where the 
sheriff gives several employees “the silent treatment” and punishes 
people who raise concerns.

“People dread coming to work,” 
Schnell said. “There are people who ask for shifts Tom isn’t on to avoid
 having to deal with him. We know we can do better for Butler County.”

Many current and former employees 
described the same breaking point with the sheriff: Dion’s treatment of a
 well-liked deputy with local ties who raised concerns about the safety 
of some deputies’ cruisers.

Former Deputy Devin Betzen was fired 
after filing a formal complaint with Butler County about a Dodge 
Charger, saying it had a bad rear suspension and a tire showing cords.

Betzen learned about cars from his 
dad, who raced in and around Butler County. Betzen worked for a local 
mechanic in high school.

Betzen and Dion got along well when 
he started in 2018. Betzen said things soured after he suggested 
deputies keep a log of maintenance issues regarding their cruisers.&nbsp;

Dion shot down several of his repair 
requests, pointing to the pending replacement of the Dodge cruisers with
 sport-utility vehicles. But Betzen argued that they needed to be safe 
until then.

“He always had issues with that, and with me wanting to get preventative maintenance done,” Betzen said.

Then Betzen, after complaining about 
the condition of his tires, got a flat. An employee of a garage that 
maintains sheriff’s vehicles told Betzen that Dion had told the garage 
to replace the flat with a used tire.

Betzen, who didn’t mind, said he 
noticed that the replacement tire was the same one removed from a 
sheriff’s vehicle earlier because it was showing cords, too.

The deputy filed a formal complaint. 
He said he was scared about engaging in pursuits with a tire showing 
cords, especially on gravel roads.

The sheriff sent a letter terminating
 Betzen. He said Betzen had gone above Dion’s head to complain and 
criticized Betzen for including inaccurate information in his complaint.
 One issue Dion raised was that Betzen changed his own tire but reported
 that the garage had changed it. Dion also alleged in the letter that 
Betzen had pushed cruisers too hard.

Betzen denied driving his cruisers 
too hard and said he forgot that he had changed the tire himself while 
the mechanic was talking to him.

The sheriff declined to discuss the firing.

Dion reported the firing to the 
Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center in Grand Island, which has the 
authority to revoke an officer’s law enforcement certificate. The report
 was reviewed and dismissed.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Betzen now works in landscaping and said he doesn’t know if he will ever go back into law enforcement.

“I was hurt,” Betzen said. “Here’s a 
guy I looked up to, did my first ride-along with, and then I just get … 
canned by him over a personal vendetta.”

Dion tried to fire Schnell in 2021 
after she filed a complaint about him with the Nebraska Equal 
Opportunity Commission. Butler County officials made Dion rescind her 
firing the same day.&nbsp;

Dion described the office dynamic 
with a deputy running against him him as “very uncomfortable.” He said 
he probably needs to adjust his management style from “old-school” 
barking orders to talking things out.

“The problem is they don’t bring it 
to me,” Dion said. “The door is always open, but I can’t make somebody 
come in here and talk to me about an issue or a problem that they have.”

Current and former deputies said they
 have tried meeting with Dion but said he ended a key meeting in 
minutes, without addressing their issues.&nbsp;

The deputies also tried going to the 
county board, but board members declined to respond since the sheriff is
 an elected official.

Deputies tried to organize a union, 
but the effort fizzled after Dion secured raises for jail employees, 
leading them to back out of the bargaining unit.&nbsp;

Jim Maguire, president of the 
Nebraska Fraternal Order of Police, said smaller sheriff’s offices where
 deputies aren’t represented by unions have faced similar problems 
elsewhere.&nbsp;

He said being able to negotiate a 
contract with a county isn’t always about higher wages or benefits. 
Sometimes, he said, it’s about working conditions and making sure people
 can do the job safely.

Maguire, a longtime sheriff’s deputy 
in Douglas County, said law enforcement officers should not have to 
worry whether their vehicle is safe or whether their boss will talk to 
them.&nbsp;

Recruiting and retaining law 
enforcement officers matters more now because fewer people want the job,
 Maguire said. And training replacements costs taxpayers tens of 
thousands of dollars each time, he said.

Union leaders said the Legislature 
could help smaller departments find a way to resolve disputes like these
 by revising state law.

Nebraska Revised Statutes 23-1722 and
 23-1723 enable deputies in counties with a population of 25,000 to 
400,000 to have their grievances heard by a local “merit commission.”

Those three- to five-member 
commissions include at least one elected official appointed by the 
county board, one deputy selected by the deputies and a community 
member.&nbsp;

That approach could be extended to 
smaller counties at little to no cost, Maguire said. It creates an 
independent, third-party commission so a sheriff is not the sole arbiter
 of serious disputes.

State Sen. Suzanne Geist of Lincoln, a
 member of the Judiciary Committee, said she thinks such a change could 
be a “good idea.” She said she would support legislation that does so.

“Things like this don’t happen all the time,” Geist said. “But it’s good for elected positions to have oversight.”

The problems in Butler County are 
seeping into the public eye, in part, because the sheriff’s office isn’t
 staffed during a handful of hours each day.&nbsp;

Response times are often slower then,
 because an employee on call must respond from home, which Dion 
acknowledged. One David City retail employee said the store once waited 
about 45 minutes after calling for a deputy during this off time.

David City leaders pushed in a recent
 meeting to renegotiate the city’s contract with the sheriff’s office 
for enforcing local ordinances. They said taxpayers weren’t getting what
 they paid for.

Dion said he has provided the 
services under the town’s contract. But City Council members told him at
 a recent meeting that his office had not enforced their ordinances 
consistently. City officials and Dion said they have been discussing the
 potential costs of adding more deputies.

Several Butler County board members have expressed frustrations with Dion during their public meetings.&nbsp;

One of Dion’s defenders on the county
 board, David Mach of Linwood, said he doesn’t believe the critics. He 
said Dion has done a good job. He said he’s seen more patrols in the 
rural areas near his home.

“Some of the people that left 
probably needed to go,” Mach said of sheriff’s office employees. “He 
didn’t really clean house. He kept the people who were there. That was 
probably a mistake.”

The county board took over management
 of the county’s 911 center this year, after dispatchers complained 
about working for Dion. Dispatchers told the Examiner that Dion didn’t 
always fill out reports after responding to calls, which complicated 
record-keeping.&nbsp;

Dion said he hadn’t heard such complaints.&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/10/1666368531106.png" alt="Shown is the Butler County Sheriff’s Office in David City, Neb. (Aaron Sanderford/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption>Shown is the Butler County Sheriff’s Office in David City, Neb. (Aaron Sanderford/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>By AARON SANDERFORD <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/10/21/rural-sheriffs-race-roils-butler-county/">Nebraska Examiner</a>DAVID CITY, Nebraska — Butler County 
Sheriff Tom Dion knows what it’s like to run against a sheriff and win. 
In 2018, a year after leaving his job as a sergeant, Dion beat his old 
boss, Sheriff Marcus Siebken.Four years later, Dion faces a 
challenge from within his own ranks. Deputy Marla Schnell is running 
against him, and most of Dion’s deputies and staff back Schnell, not the
 sheriff.<h2>Malcontents or mismanagement</h2>Dion defended his record last week, 
saying he’s proudest of reviving the anti-drug DARE program in Butler 
County schools and signing new contracts to enforce local ordinances in 
Surprise, Octavia and Brainard.He said he is dealing with “a few 
employees making trouble.” But Dion’s critics and documents obtained by 
the Nebraska Examiner show more to his troubles than that.&nbsp;Schnell said she is running because 
too many of the county’s experienced deputies have left. She and others 
in the office said the county risks more departures if Dion wins 
re-election.Over the past year, Butler County has
 lost four of its nine deputies, the Examiner has learned. One was 
fired. Three left on their own. All were replaced by new hires.&nbsp;&nbsp;People who have left and several who 
are considering leaving said Dion plays favorites with who gets paid how
 much, how cruisers get fixed and who gets assigned what shifts.&nbsp;They said he rewards loyalty over performance, which Dion denies.Interviews with 11 current and former
 employees paint a picture of an office with workers on edge, where the 
sheriff gives several employees “the silent treatment” and punishes 
people who raise concerns.“People dread coming to work,” 
Schnell said. “There are people who ask for shifts Tom isn’t on to avoid
 having to deal with him. We know we can do better for Butler County.”<h2>Fired deputy fractured office</h2>Many current and former employees 
described the same breaking point with the sheriff: Dion’s treatment of a
 well-liked deputy with local ties who raised concerns about the safety 
of some deputies’ cruisers.Former Deputy Devin Betzen was fired 
after filing a formal complaint with Butler County about a Dodge 
Charger, saying it had a bad rear suspension and a tire showing cords.Betzen learned about cars from his 
dad, who raced in and around Butler County. Betzen worked for a local 
mechanic in high school.Betzen and Dion got along well when 
he started in 2018. Betzen said things soured after he suggested 
deputies keep a log of maintenance issues regarding their cruisers.&nbsp;Dion shot down several of his repair 
requests, pointing to the pending replacement of the Dodge cruisers with
 sport-utility vehicles. But Betzen argued that they needed to be safe 
until then.“He always had issues with that, and with me wanting to get preventative maintenance done,” Betzen said.Then Betzen, after complaining about 
the condition of his tires, got a flat. An employee of a garage that 
maintains sheriff’s vehicles told Betzen that Dion had told the garage 
to replace the flat with a used tire.Betzen, who didn’t mind, said he 
noticed that the replacement tire was the same one removed from a 
sheriff’s vehicle earlier because it was showing cords, too.The deputy filed a formal complaint. 
He said he was scared about engaging in pursuits with a tire showing 
cords, especially on gravel roads.The sheriff sent a letter terminating
 Betzen. He said Betzen had gone above Dion’s head to complain and 
criticized Betzen for including inaccurate information in his complaint.
 One issue Dion raised was that Betzen changed his own tire but reported
 that the garage had changed it. Dion also alleged in the letter that 
Betzen had pushed cruisers too hard.Betzen denied driving his cruisers 
too hard and said he forgot that he had changed the tire himself while 
the mechanic was talking to him.The sheriff declined to discuss the firing.Dion reported the firing to the 
Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center in Grand Island, which has the 
authority to revoke an officer’s law enforcement certificate. The report
 was reviewed and dismissed.&nbsp;&nbsp;Betzen now works in landscaping and said he doesn’t know if he will ever go back into law enforcement.“I was hurt,” Betzen said. “Here’s a 
guy I looked up to, did my first ride-along with, and then I just get … 
canned by him over a personal vendetta.”Dion tried to fire Schnell in 2021 
after she filed a complaint about him with the Nebraska Equal 
Opportunity Commission. Butler County officials made Dion rescind her 
firing the same day.&nbsp;<h2>Union attempt fizzled</h2>Dion described the office dynamic 
with a deputy running against him him as “very uncomfortable.” He said 
he probably needs to adjust his management style from “old-school” 
barking orders to talking things out.“The problem is they don’t bring it 
to me,” Dion said. “The door is always open, but I can’t make somebody 
come in here and talk to me about an issue or a problem that they have.”Current and former deputies said they
 have tried meeting with Dion but said he ended a key meeting in 
minutes, without addressing their issues.&nbsp;The deputies also tried going to the 
county board, but board members declined to respond since the sheriff is
 an elected official.Deputies tried to organize a union, 
but the effort fizzled after Dion secured raises for jail employees, 
leading them to back out of the bargaining unit.&nbsp;Jim Maguire, president of the 
Nebraska Fraternal Order of Police, said smaller sheriff’s offices where
 deputies aren’t represented by unions have faced similar problems 
elsewhere.&nbsp;He said being able to negotiate a 
contract with a county isn’t always about higher wages or benefits. 
Sometimes, he said, it’s about working conditions and making sure people
 can do the job safely.Maguire, a longtime sheriff’s deputy 
in Douglas County, said law enforcement officers should not have to 
worry whether their vehicle is safe or whether their boss will talk to 
them.&nbsp;Recruiting and retaining law 
enforcement officers matters more now because fewer people want the job,
 Maguire said. And training replacements costs taxpayers tens of 
thousands of dollars each time, he said.<h2>State law could change</h2>Union leaders said the Legislature 
could help smaller departments find a way to resolve disputes like these
 by revising state law.Nebraska Revised Statutes 23-1722 and
 23-1723 enable deputies in counties with a population of 25,000 to 
400,000 to have their grievances heard by a local “merit commission.”Those three- to five-member 
commissions include at least one elected official appointed by the 
county board, one deputy selected by the deputies and a community 
member.&nbsp;That approach could be extended to 
smaller counties at little to no cost, Maguire said. It creates an 
independent, third-party commission so a sheriff is not the sole arbiter
 of serious disputes.State Sen. Suzanne Geist of Lincoln, a
 member of the Judiciary Committee, said she thinks such a change could 
be a “good idea.” She said she would support legislation that does so.“Things like this don’t happen all the time,” Geist said. “But it’s good for elected positions to have oversight.”<h2>David City complaints</h2>The problems in Butler County are 
seeping into the public eye, in part, because the sheriff’s office isn’t
 staffed during a handful of hours each day.&nbsp;Response times are often slower then,
 because an employee on call must respond from home, which Dion 
acknowledged. One David City retail employee said the store once waited 
about 45 minutes after calling for a deputy during this off time.David City leaders pushed in a recent
 meeting to renegotiate the city’s contract with the sheriff’s office 
for enforcing local ordinances. They said taxpayers weren’t getting what
 they paid for.Dion said he has provided the 
services under the town’s contract. But City Council members told him at
 a recent meeting that his office had not enforced their ordinances 
consistently. City officials and Dion said they have been discussing the
 potential costs of adding more deputies.Several Butler County board members have expressed frustrations with Dion during their public meetings.&nbsp;One of Dion’s defenders on the county
 board, David Mach of Linwood, said he doesn’t believe the critics. He 
said Dion has done a good job. He said he’s seen more patrols in the 
rural areas near his home.“Some of the people that left 
probably needed to go,” Mach said of sheriff’s office employees. “He 
didn’t really clean house. He kept the people who were there. That was 
probably a mistake.”The county board took over management
 of the county’s 911 center this year, after dispatchers complained 
about working for Dion. Dispatchers told the Examiner that Dion didn’t 
always fill out reports after responding to calls, which complicated 
record-keeping.&nbsp;Dion said he hadn’t heard such complaints.&nbsp;

Rural sheriff’s race roils Butler County

WASHINGTON (AP) — Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of former President Donald Trump, was sentenced Friday to serve four months behind bars after defying a subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

The judge allowed Bannon to stay free pending appeal and also imposed a fine of $6,500 as part of the sentence.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-steve-bannon-donald-trump-congress-government-and-politics-26c539434d968d642563b38c34a62916">Bannon was convicted in July</a>&nbsp;of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for refusing to sit for a deposition and the other for refusing to provide documents.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols handed down the sentence after saying the law was clear that contempt of Congress is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of at least one month behind bars. Bannon’s lawyers had argued the judge could’ve sentenced him to probation instead. Prosecutors had&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-steve-bannon-donald-trump-subpoenas-congress-5fc152386853002290ac4e6cb35ce566">asked for Bannon to be sent to jail for six months</a>.

The House panel had sought Bannon’s testimony over his involvement in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Bannon has yet to testify or provide any documents to the committee, prosecutors wrote.

Prosecutors argued&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/steve-bannon">Bannon</a>, 68, deserved the longer sentence because he had pursued a “bad faith strategy” and his public statements disparaging the committee itself made it clear he wanted to undermine their effort to get to the bottom of the violent attack and keep anything like it from happening again.

“He chose to hide behind fabricated claims of executive privilege and advice of counsel to thumb his nose at Congress,” said prosecutor J.P. Cooney.

“Your honor, the defendant is not above the law and that is exactly what makes this case important,” Cooney said. “It must be made clear to the public, to the citizens, that no one is above the law.”

The defense, meanwhile, said he wasn’t acting in bad faith, but trying to avoid running afoul of executive privilege objections Trump had raised when Bannon was first served with a committee subpoena last year. The onetime presidential adviser said he wanted to a Trump lawyer in the room, but the committee wouldn’t allow it.

Many other former White House aides have testified with only their own counsel. Bannon had been fired from the White House in 2017 and was a private citizen when he was consulting with the then-president before the riot.

Before the judge handed down the sentence, Bannon’s lawyer, David Schoen, gave an impassioned argument railing against the committee and saying Bannon had simply done was his lawyer told him to do under Trump’s executive privilege objections.

“Quite frankly, Mr. Bannon should make no apology. No American should make any apology for the manner in which Mr. Bannon proceeded in this case,” he said.

Schoen also defended Bannon’s public remarks about the committee: “Telling the truth about this committee or speaking one’s mind about this committee, it’s not only acceptable in this country, it's an obligation if one believes it to be true,” Schoen said.

As he walked into court on Friday, Bannon told reporters, “This illegitimate regime, their judgment day is on 8 November when the Biden administration ends.” Bannon did not speak during the hearing, saying only, “My lawyers have spoken for me, your honor.”

Bannon has also argued that he had offered to testify after Trump waived executive privilege. But that was after the contempt charges were filed, and prosecutors say he would only agree to give the deposition if the case was dropped.

Prosecutors had pushed for the maximum fine, saying Bannon refused to answer routine questions about his income and insisted he could pay whatever the judge imposed.

Bannon is also facing separate money laundering, fraud and conspiracy charges in New York related to the “We Build the Wall” campaign. Bannon has pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors say Bannon falsely promised donors that all money would go to constructing a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, but instead was involved with transferring hundreds of thousands of dollars to third-party entities and using them to funnel payments to two other people involved in the scheme.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/7/1658518117885.jpeg" alt="Former White House strategist Steve Bannon arrives at the federal court in Washington last month (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)" />
 <figcaption>Former White House strategist Steve Bannon arrives at the federal court in Washington last month (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of former President Donald Trump, was sentenced Friday to serve four months behind bars after defying a subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.The judge allowed Bannon to stay free pending appeal and also imposed a fine of $6,500 as part of the sentence.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-steve-bannon-donald-trump-congress-government-and-politics-26c539434d968d642563b38c34a62916">Bannon was convicted in July</a>&nbsp;of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for refusing to sit for a deposition and the other for refusing to provide documents.U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols handed down the sentence after saying the law was clear that contempt of Congress is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of at least one month behind bars. Bannon’s lawyers had argued the judge could’ve sentenced him to probation instead. Prosecutors had&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-steve-bannon-donald-trump-subpoenas-congress-5fc152386853002290ac4e6cb35ce566">asked for Bannon to be sent to jail for six months</a>.The House panel had sought Bannon’s testimony over his involvement in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Bannon has yet to testify or provide any documents to the committee, prosecutors wrote.Prosecutors argued&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/steve-bannon">Bannon</a>, 68, deserved the longer sentence because he had pursued a “bad faith strategy” and his public statements disparaging the committee itself made it clear he wanted to undermine their effort to get to the bottom of the violent attack and keep anything like it from happening again.“He chose to hide behind fabricated claims of executive privilege and advice of counsel to thumb his nose at Congress,” said prosecutor J.P. Cooney.“Your honor, the defendant is not above the law and that is exactly what makes this case important,” Cooney said. “It must be made clear to the public, to the citizens, that no one is above the law.”The defense, meanwhile, said he wasn’t acting in bad faith, but trying to avoid running afoul of executive privilege objections Trump had raised when Bannon was first served with a committee subpoena last year. The onetime presidential adviser said he wanted to a Trump lawyer in the room, but the committee wouldn’t allow it.Many other former White House aides have testified with only their own counsel. Bannon had been fired from the White House in 2017 and was a private citizen when he was consulting with the then-president before the riot.Before the judge handed down the sentence, Bannon’s lawyer, David Schoen, gave an impassioned argument railing against the committee and saying Bannon had simply done was his lawyer told him to do under Trump’s executive privilege objections.“Quite frankly, Mr. Bannon should make no apology. No American should make any apology for the manner in which Mr. Bannon proceeded in this case,” he said.Schoen also defended Bannon’s public remarks about the committee: “Telling the truth about this committee or speaking one’s mind about this committee, it’s not only acceptable in this country, it's an obligation if one believes it to be true,” Schoen said.As he walked into court on Friday, Bannon told reporters, “This illegitimate regime, their judgment day is on 8 November when the Biden administration ends.” Bannon did not speak during the hearing, saying only, “My lawyers have spoken for me, your honor.”Bannon has also argued that he had offered to testify after Trump waived executive privilege. But that was after the contempt charges were filed, and prosecutors say he would only agree to give the deposition if the case was dropped.Prosecutors had pushed for the maximum fine, saying Bannon refused to answer routine questions about his income and insisted he could pay whatever the judge imposed.Bannon is also facing separate money laundering, fraud and conspiracy charges in New York related to the “We Build the Wall” campaign. Bannon has pleaded not guilty.Prosecutors say Bannon falsely promised donors that all money would go to constructing a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, but instead was involved with transferring hundreds of thousands of dollars to third-party entities and using them to funnel payments to two other people involved in the scheme.

Former Trump chief strategist sentenced for defying 1/6 subpoena

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon will provide travel funds and support for troops and their dependents who seek&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/abortion">abortions</a>&nbsp;but are based in states where they are now illegal, according to a new department policy released Thursday. The military will also increase privacy protections for those seeking care.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/20/2003099747/-1/-1/1/MEMORANDUM-ENSURING-ACCESS-TO-REPRODUCTIVE-HEALTH-CARE.PDF">order</a>&nbsp;issued by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin outlines the rights and protections service members and their dependents will have regardless of where they are based, which was a key concern of troops after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0">the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June.</a>

Access to abortion has become a central issue in the midterm elections. President Joe Biden promised this week that the first bill he sends to Capitol Hill next year&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-2022-midterm-elections-biden-health-congress-f3ffadd1d55625a4af7b87f6b691fbbc">will be one that writes abortion protections into law,</a>&nbsp;if Democrats control enough seats in Congress to pass it.

And he said, in a forum with NowThis News, that he would support a federal fund to reimburse some costs for those who have to travel for the procedure.

“I do support that, and I’ve publicly urged companies to do that," he said. "I’ve urged them publicly as president of the United States saying, ‘This is what you should be doing.’’’

The high court ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson case stripped away women’s constitutional protections for abortion and left it to states to determine whether the procedure is legal within their borders. In the months since, abortion has been banned or sharply restricted in more than a dozen states.

The new military policy sets guidelines so that local commanders aren't allowed to influence whether service members get access to care or face a culture where they or their dependents do not come forward out of fear of repercussions. It builds on an initial reaction by the Pentagon in June, when, days after the Supreme Court decision, the Pentagon said it would continue to allow medical leave for service members who needed to travel out of state to get abortions but noted it needed to review the court ruling and subsequent state laws to see if further guidance would be necessary.

Austin directed the services to implement the new policy by the end of this calendar year.

The Pentagon has also been concerned that the Dobbs decision could affect recruitment and retention as service members or potential recruits weighed the risk that they would be assigned to states where abortions are illegal. Many of the Pentagon’s major military bases are located in states including Texas and Florida where anti-abortion laws are now in place.

The new guidelines also direct each military base to publicly display what reproductive heath care support is available for service members and their dependents, extend the time in which a service member must report a pregnancy to commanders to 20 weeks and provide additional protections for defense health care providers who furnish abortion services.

Under federal law, the Pentagon’s health care system can provide abortions only in cases of rape or incest or when a mother’s life is in danger. That doesn't change under the new policy. The funds the military would provide service members would cover transportation only; they would not pay for abortion services that are not covered by federal law.

Attorney Natalie Khawam, who represented the family of slain U.S. soldier Vanessa Guillén, whose body was found last year outside the boundary of Fort Hood, Texas, said the policy is part of a continued effort by the Pentagon to address a military culture that has not been supportive of female service members. Guillén’s death led to sweeping changes as to how sexual harassment and assault are addressed in the military.

“When you are protecting a woman, you are protecting a family, you are protecting everyone that's in her nexus. It could be her children, it could be her parents, it could be her spouse or siblings, and you are definitely protecting the country as she's serving the country," Khawam said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/10/1666293855614.png" alt="Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder during a Wednesday press conference" />
 <figcaption>Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder during a Wednesday press conference</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon will provide travel funds and support for troops and their dependents who seek&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/abortion">abortions</a>&nbsp;but are based in states where they are now illegal, according to a new department policy released Thursday. The military will also increase privacy protections for those seeking care.The&nbsp;<a href="https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/20/2003099747/-1/-1/1/MEMORANDUM-ENSURING-ACCESS-TO-REPRODUCTIVE-HEALTH-CARE.PDF">order</a>&nbsp;issued by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin outlines the rights and protections service members and their dependents will have regardless of where they are based, which was a key concern of troops after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0">the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June.</a>Access to abortion has become a central issue in the midterm elections. President Joe Biden promised this week that the first bill he sends to Capitol Hill next year&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-2022-midterm-elections-biden-health-congress-f3ffadd1d55625a4af7b87f6b691fbbc">will be one that writes abortion protections into law,</a>&nbsp;if Democrats control enough seats in Congress to pass it.And he said, in a forum with NowThis News, that he would support a federal fund to reimburse some costs for those who have to travel for the procedure.“I do support that, and I’ve publicly urged companies to do that," he said. "I’ve urged them publicly as president of the United States saying, ‘This is what you should be doing.’’’The high court ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson case stripped away women’s constitutional protections for abortion and left it to states to determine whether the procedure is legal within their borders. In the months since, abortion has been banned or sharply restricted in more than a dozen states.The new military policy sets guidelines so that local commanders aren't allowed to influence whether service members get access to care or face a culture where they or their dependents do not come forward out of fear of repercussions. It builds on an initial reaction by the Pentagon in June, when, days after the Supreme Court decision, the Pentagon said it would continue to allow medical leave for service members who needed to travel out of state to get abortions but noted it needed to review the court ruling and subsequent state laws to see if further guidance would be necessary.Austin directed the services to implement the new policy by the end of this calendar year.The Pentagon has also been concerned that the Dobbs decision could affect recruitment and retention as service members or potential recruits weighed the risk that they would be assigned to states where abortions are illegal. Many of the Pentagon’s major military bases are located in states including Texas and Florida where anti-abortion laws are now in place.The new guidelines also direct each military base to publicly display what reproductive heath care support is available for service members and their dependents, extend the time in which a service member must report a pregnancy to commanders to 20 weeks and provide additional protections for defense health care providers who furnish abortion services.Under federal law, the Pentagon’s health care system can provide abortions only in cases of rape or incest or when a mother’s life is in danger. That doesn't change under the new policy. The funds the military would provide service members would cover transportation only; they would not pay for abortion services that are not covered by federal law.Attorney Natalie Khawam, who represented the family of slain U.S. soldier Vanessa Guillén, whose body was found last year outside the boundary of Fort Hood, Texas, said the policy is part of a continued effort by the Pentagon to address a military culture that has not been supportive of female service members. Guillén’s death led to sweeping changes as to how sexual harassment and assault are addressed in the military.“When you are protecting a woman, you are protecting a family, you are protecting everyone that's in her nexus. It could be her children, it could be her parents, it could be her spouse or siblings, and you are definitely protecting the country as she's serving the country," Khawam said.

Pentagon to provide funds, help for troops seeking abortions

SEDGWICK COUNTY—Law enforcement authorities including the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network Enforcement Team in Wichita&nbsp;have seized ten crime guns and a massive number of suspected fentanyl pills in the past few days, according to Officer Trevor Macy.

Police estimated - based on weight - the  number of pills to be somewhere in the area of half a million to a million, which would make this the largest seizure of fentanyl for Wichita Police to date and a record seizure nationwide.

Due to the investigation's ongoing and sensitive nature, police released no further details.

Wichita Police and federal partners continue working to remove dangerous weapons and drugs from the streets.

<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qtB0lq7A85E" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>SEDGWICK COUNTY—Law enforcement authorities including the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network Enforcement Team in Wichita&nbsp;have seized ten crime guns and a massive number of suspected fentanyl pills in the past few days, according to Officer Trevor Macy.Police estimated - based on weight - the number of pills to be somewhere in the area of half a million to a million, which would make this the largest seizure of fentanyl for Wichita Police to date and a record seizure nationwide.Due to the investigation's ongoing and sensitive nature, police released no further details.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/2/1645113218229.png" alt="Fake oxycodone pills often contain fentanyl. -photo U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration" />
 <figcaption>Fake oxycodone pills often contain fentanyl. -photo U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration</figcaption>
 </figure>Wichita Police and federal partners continue working to remove dangerous weapons and drugs from the streets.

Police seize record amount of fentanyl pills in Kansas

ST. LOUIS (AP) — A federal judge in St. Louis on Thursday dismissed an effort by six Republican-led states to block the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-biden-plan-d9c8e18774a744187c9af634bf4eb728">Biden administration's plan to forgive student loan debt</a>&nbsp;for tens of millions of Americans.

<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-education-lawsuits-st-louis-missouri-a54a892e45f80c5329d45b8fe587f267">U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey</a>&nbsp;wrote that because the six states — Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina — failed to establish they had standing, “the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.”

Suzanne Gage, spokeswoman for Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson, said the states will appeal. She said in a statement that the states "continue to believe that they do in fact have standing to raise their important legal challenges.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/10/1666317271708.jpeg" alt="New graduates line up before the start of a community college commencement in East Rutherford, N.J., May 17, 2018. A federal judge in St. Louis on Thursday, Oct. 20, 2022, dismissed an effort by six Republican-led states to block the Biden administration's plan to forgive student loan debt for tens of millions of Americans. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)" />
 <figcaption>New graduates line up before the start of a community college commencement in East Rutherford, N.J., May 17, 2018. A federal judge in St. Louis on Thursday, Oct. 20, 2022, dismissed an effort by six Republican-led states to block the Biden administration's plan to forgive student loan debt for tens of millions of Americans. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)</figcaption>
 </figure>By THE ASSOCIATED PRESSST. LOUIS (AP) — A federal judge in St. Louis on Thursday dismissed an effort by six Republican-led states to block the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-biden-plan-d9c8e18774a744187c9af634bf4eb728">Biden administration's plan to forgive student loan debt</a>&nbsp;for tens of millions of Americans.<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-education-lawsuits-st-louis-missouri-a54a892e45f80c5329d45b8fe587f267">U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey</a>&nbsp;wrote that because the six states — Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina — failed to establish they had standing, “the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.”Suzanne Gage, spokeswoman for Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson, said the states will appeal. She said in a statement that the states "continue to believe that they do in fact have standing to raise their important legal challenges.”Democratic President Joe Biden announced in August that his administration would cancel up to $20,000 in education debt for huge numbers of borrowers. The announcement immediately became a major political issue ahead of the November midterm elections.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-lawsuits-covid-missouri-862d783188de45b698c54b00820d3616">states' lawsuit</a>&nbsp;is among a few that have been filed. Earlier Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett&nbsp;<a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/justice-barrett-rejects-appeal-over-biden-student-debt-plan/">rejected an appeal from a Wisconsin taxpayers group</a>&nbsp;seeking to stop the debt cancellation program.Barrett, who oversees emergency appeals from Wisconsin and neighboring states, did not comment in turning away the appeal from the Brown County Taxpayers Association. The group wrote in its Supreme Court filing that it needed an emergency order because the administration could begin canceling outstanding student debt as soon as Sunday.In the lawsuit brought by the states, lawyers for the administration said the Department of Education has “broad authority to manage the federal student financial aid programs.” A court filing stated that the 2003 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, allows the secretary of education to waive or modify terms of federal student loans in times of war or national emergency.“COVID-19 is such an emergency,” the filing stated.The Congressional Budget Office has said the program will cost about $400 billion over the next three decades. James Campbell, an attorney for the Nebraska attorney general’s office, told Autrey at an Oct. 12 hearing that the administration is acting outside its authorities in a way that will cost states millions of dollars.The plan would cancel $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, will get an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.Conservative attorneys, Republican lawmakers and business-oriented groups have asserted that Biden overstepped his authority in taking such sweeping action without the assent of Congress. They called it an unfair government giveaway for relatively affluent people at the expense of taxpayers who didn’t pursue higher education.Chris Nuelle, spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, said the plan "will unfairly burden working class families with even more economic woes.”Many Democratic lawmakers facing tough reelection contests have distanced themselves from the plan.The HEROES Act was enacted after 9/11 to help members of the military. The Justice Department says the law allows Biden to reduce or erase student loan debt during a national emergency. Republicans argue the administration is misinterpreting the law, in part because the pandemic no longer qualifies as a national emergency.Justice Department attorney Brian Netter told Autrey that fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is still rippling. He said student loan defaults have skyrocketed over the past 2 1/2 years.The cancellation applies to federal student loans used to attend undergraduate and graduate school, along with Parent Plus loans. Current college students qualify if their loans were disbursed before July 1.The plan makes 43 million borrowers eligible for some debt forgiveness, with 20 million who could get their debt erased entirely, according to the administration.<a href="https://northplattepost.com/posts/2ddcec21-000f-4ace-b19e-4250120d6629">&nbsp;&nbsp;Download The Post app for iOs or Android</a><figure>
 <img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/NAfmqBjo7pIMHVcW2J1xCAvRJj74eUlz5MyL0Y7qQxQJf3KuIirKUd5_mpIhrF4XXc26IWnU1Gd_M2cgQSlE5px_BpCnYPKq96EcotD-AeAwHEYzKmRHZWS_NUfV8LEbA6LKOKsMZydJEynAGJb9DuUCoGFVnDh__o4quJpyAbfxPObQ5GfrU7tv" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>