Police covered the flag mounted to the back of half ton truck used in the New Orleans attack

From The Center Square

By Steve Wilson

At least 10 people are dead and 35 are injured after a man drove a truck through a Bourbon Street New Year’s crowd early Wednesday.

According to the New Orleans Police Department, the driver exchanged fire with and was later killed on the scene by officers. Explosive devices were found in the truck, but the driver’s identity has not been revealed.

The Police Department said two of its officers were hit and injured in the gunfire exchange. Both were transported via emergency medical services to a local hospital and were last listed in stable condition.

In an initial briefing, the FBI called it an “incident,” but the FBI changed its view later. New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell called the incident a terrorist attack.

“This morning, an individual drove a car into a crowd of people on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, killing a number of people and injuring dozens of others,” the FBI said in a statement. “The subject then engaged with local law enforcement and is now deceased. The FBI is the lead investigative agency, and we are working with our partners to investigate this as an act of terrorism.”

According to Fox News, the truck was spotted crossing the border at Eagle Pass, Texas, on Nov. 16 and had a Texas license plate. Early Wednesday afternoon, law enforcement agencies had not publicly released information connecting the suspect to any activity at the border.

Fox News Digital reported the driver was Shamsud Din Jabbar, a 42-year-old Houston resident. The outlet said an ISIS flag was on the truck.

President Joe Biden said he had been continually briefed about the attack.

“I will continue to receive updates throughout the day, and I will have more to say as we have further information to share,” Biden said in the White House statement. “My heart goes out to the victims and their families who were simply trying to celebrate the holiday. There is no justification for violence of any kind, and we will not tolerate any attack on any of our nation’s communities.”

President-elect Donald Trump blasted the attack in a statement released on his Truth Social platform.

“When I said that the criminals coming in are far worse than the criminals we have in our country, that statement was constantly refuted by Democrats and the Fake News Media, but it turned out to be true,” Trump said. “The crime rate in our country is at a level that nobody has ever seen before. Our hearts are with all of the innocent victims and their loved ones, including the brave officers of the New Orleans Police Department.

“The Trump administration will fully support the city of New Orleans as they investigate and recover from this act of pure evil!”

On social media, Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill said, “Many of us woke up this morning to devastating news of the brutal intentional slaughter of innocent people celebrating the New Year in New Orleans. I’m praying for the victims and their families and will ensure they get justice for this appalling act. Please avoid the immediate area at this time and listen to the law enforcement officers who are still on the scene.”

Also on social media, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry said, “This is a fluid situation and we are in coordination with numerous local and federal law enforcement agencies to ensure a complete and thorough investigation to bring those who may have been part of this incident to justice. We recognize that there are tourists around us, and we urge all to avoid the French Quarter as this is an active investigation.

“We understand the concerns of the community and want to reassure everyone that the safety of the French Quarter and the city of New Orleans remains our top priority.”

From The Center Square

By Casey Harper

The U.S. Supreme Court has released a string of landmark rulings recently, from sending the abortion issue back to the states to granting a measure of presidential immunity to the overturning of Chevron deference, significantly weakening federal rulemaking power.

Supreme Court terms begin and end in October, and heading into the new year there are major cases awaiting.

Here are five of the biggest cases in which the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in by the end of this term:

Tik Tok Ban

Many lawmakers and national security experts have raised concerns about the invasive software attached to Tik Tok, a hugely popular entertainment app that reportedly has about 150 million active users.

China is the parent company for the app and has access to millions of Americans personal data through the Tik Tok software, which is unusually invasive and collects much more personal data on its users than other similar apps.

President Joe Biden signed into law a ban on the app unless it is sold to a U.S. company, citing these concerns.

While that ban had bipartisan support, President-elect Donald Trump weighed in on the case this week, asking the Supreme Court to delay the ban from going into effect.

“In light of these interests – including, most importantly, his overarching responsibility for the United States’ national security and foreign policy –  President Trump opposes banning TikTok in the United States at this juncture, and seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office,” Trump’s lawyer said in a brief filed with the court.

During the presidential campaign, Trump promised to “save Tik Tok.”

“Furthermore, President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government – concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged,” the brief read.

Transgender Surgeries for Minors

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last fall in United States v. Skrmetti, a case that considers the constitutionality of a Tennessee bill that bans transgender surgeries and hormones for minors.

Those medical procedures have become increasingly controversial since they can sterilize the recipients and are sometimes later regretted when the children come of age.

The Supreme Court ruling could kill or encourage similar efforts in states around the country.

Ghost Guns

In Garland v. VanDerStok, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives faces a legal challenge to its Biden-era rule attempting to block “ghost guns,” firearms without serial numbers that can be 3-D printed or put together by someone who acquires individual parts.

In particular, kits can be bought online that allow buyers to assemble a weapon. The case in question will require the justices to determine whether a disassembled kit of firearm parts is still considered a “firearm” and therefore subject to federal rules, especially rules requiring a serial number.

During oral arguments last fall, justices seemed skeptical of the legal challenge to the federal rule.

Age Verification for Pornography

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments Jan. 15 in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a legal challenge to a Texas law requiring pornography sites to use age verification to prevent minors from seeing their pornographic content.

Critics have cited free speech concerns while proponents of the law have pointed out that there is legal precedent for age verification which is required for other products like alcohol and tobacco and has been required to view R-rated movies in theaters.

Pornography sites have pushed back on the law, which has been adopted in a similar fashion in about 20 Republican states around the country.

“Let me put this simply: these companies do not have a right to expose children to pornography,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “Texas has a clear interest in protecting children, and we have been successful defending this commonsense age verification law against a powerful global industry.”

Environmental Impact

The Supreme Court in December heard oral arguments in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, a case where justices will consider just how expansive the environmental constraints can become on federal agency actions.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, federal agencies are required to assess the “foreseeable impact” on the environment of their actions.

However, just how broad that assessment must be is up for consideration.