Por Mauricio Torres, CNN en Español

El Gobierno de Estados Unidos quiere que los países de América Latina, Colombia y México en particular, hagan más para combatir el tráfico de drogas que, según la Casa Blanca, representa “una de las más graves amenazas” para sus ciudadanos.

La nueva Estrategia Nacional de Control de Drogas de Estados Unidos, publicada este lunes, señala que el presidente Donald Trump quiere que Colombia y México den más resultados en este terreno y utilizará su peso para que sea así.

De parte de Colombia, dice el documento, Estados Unidos espera más acciones para reducir el cultivo de hoja de coca e interrumpir las redes criminales que lucran con la producción de cocaína. De parte de México, en tanto, busca más decomisos de precursores químicos y drogas sintéticas, y que acabe con la capacidad de los carteles del narcotráfico para “amenazar” territorio estadounidense.

“Este objetivo se enfoca en apoyar los esfuerzos para erradicar las fuentes de drogas a base de plantas, como las hojas de coca destinadas para ser transformadas en cocaína en Colombia, así como en desmantelar los laboratorios clandestinos de drogas que producen drogas sintéticas como el fentanilo y las metanfetaminas en México y Canadá”, señala.

La estrategia dice que uno de sus componentes clave será ofrecer apoyo a esos países para tareas antinarcóticos, aunque también ejercerá presión diplomática a través del Departamento de Estado, que a su vez actuará en coordinación con el Departamento de Justicia y con respaldo del Departamento de Defensa.

Advierte que Estados Unidos “aprovechará sus compromisos bilaterales, regionales y multilaterales” para exigir que naciones de origen y tránsito de drogas —entre las que menciona a China, India y Canadá, además de Colombia y México— adopten marcos similares para supervisar los embarques de productos químicos, farmacéuticos y de laboratorio.

“El Gobierno también encabezará esfuerzos globales de programación y control y hará que los países tomen acciones agresivas contra las entidades y los individuos que trafiquen con drogas ilícitas, tanto cultivadas como sintéticas, junto con sus precursores, sustancias relacionadas y equipo”, agrega.

Uno de sus caminos en este sentido, detalla, será buscar la cooperación de las autoridades mexicanas para actuar contra las organizaciones criminales basadas en el país, algunas de las cuales —como el Cartel de Sinaloa y el Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación— fueron designadas en un decreto que Trump emitió en febrero de 2025.

“Esto incluye aumentar la coordinación entre Estados Unidos y México contra las amenazas transnacionales, a través de programas para las autoridades mexicanas para aplicación de la ley, compartir información, seguridad fronteriza y apoyo a operaciones conjuntas. Esta asistencia estará condicionada a resultados tangibles, incluyendo las medidas apropiadas para arrestar, procesar y extraditar a líderes de organizaciones terroristas extranjeras y para desmantelar laboratorios de drogas sintéticas”, dice.

CNN contactó a los gobiernos de Colombia y de México para pedir comentarios y espera respuesta.

Previamente, el presidente de Colombia, Gustavo Petro, ha dicho que su Gobierno realizó decomisos “históricos” de cocaína y está comprometido con el combate al narcotráfico. De forma similar, la presidenta de México, Claudia Sheinbaum, ha señalado que las autoridades de su país combaten a los carteles y ha insistido en tener disposición para trabajar con Estados Unidos, siempre que sea sin subordinación y con respeto a la soberanía nacional.

A pesar de

By Hannah Rabinowitz, CNN

(CNN) — The Justice Department sued Denver on Tuesday, alleging that the city’s decades-old ban on semi-automatic weapons violates the Second Amendment.

Enacted nearly 40 years ago, the Denver ordinance restricts firearms with magazines over 15 rounds, including any weapons that have been modified to do so. The civil lawsuit filed Tuesday asks a judge to stop the city and its police department from enforcing the weapons ban and to implement policies that “correct” instances in which people’s rights were violated.

“Law-abiding Americans, regardless of what city or state they reside in, should not have to live under threat of criminal sanction just for exercising their Second Amendment right to possess arms which are owned by tens of millions of their fellow citizens,” Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a statement.

The Justice Department has vowed to sue state and local governments across the country for gun policies it claims violate the Constitution. The DOJ established a Second Amendment Section last year to lead the charge in filing those cases.

The Justice Department division has filed other lawsuits, including one against Washington, DC, for its restrictions on AR-15-style weapons. The department has also sued the Virgin Islands Police Department for permitting delays it says are unreasonable.

The AR-15 is among the popular rifles owned in the US.

Dhillon first warned the city of a potential lawsuit in late April, writing that Denver could avoid the process if officials agreed to stop enforcing the ban and acknowledge it was unconstitutional.

City leaders rejected the notion, crediting the ordinance in part for a drop in violent crime and noting that courts across the country have previously rejected similar cases.

“Your request is baseless, irresponsible, and a clear overreach of the federal government’s power,” City Attorney Miko Brown said in a response letter dated Monday, adding that “reversing a common-sense ban that has worked for 37 years and bringing assault weapons back into the City’s neighborhoods is not one of them.”

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post Justice Department launches court battle over Denver’s semi-automatic weapons ban appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

The post Free Will Astrology appeared first on The Santa Barbara Independent.

CNN

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The November election is still a long way off, but patience is already running thin at the Supreme Court.

An explosive exchange between three conservative justices and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson late Monday underscored a tension that has developed in voting cases as the court runs headlong into an election-heavy docket that will have far-reaching implications for the midterms.

Jackson accused the court of rolling over its “principles” in pursuit of influencing the November election.

Justice Samuel Alito fired back, calling that “insulting.” The conservative justice said Jackson’s dissent raised “trivial” and “baseless” arguments.

The heated back-and-forth over what amounted to a technical question about Louisiana’s congressional map comes as the high court is already juggling other appeals that could have consequences for this year’s election – not to mention a flood of short-fuse litigation expected this summer and fall.

“To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position,” Jackson wrote in a scathing dissent on Monday. “But, today, the court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation.”

“What principle has the court violated?” Alito fired back in a concurring opinion joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. “The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?”

Within the world of the Supreme Court, those words were unusually harsh, but it’s the latest example of tension behind the curtain slipping into public view.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal, issued a rare public apology last month for suggesting earlier that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s privileged upbringing influenced his approach to an emergency immigration case last year. A day earlier, Jackson spent more than an hour lambasting the court’s conservative majority for its handling of quick-turn cases.

More election decisions incoming

For decades, the Supreme Court cautioned courts against changing the rules of an election at the last minute. The “Purcell principle,” rooted in a 2006 Supreme Court decision, warns federal courts to avoid making late changes to the status quo.

But in the coming weeks, the court will rule on a Republican push to lift caps on how much money political parties may spend in coordination with candidates – a decision that could benefit Republicans by offsetting the advantage Democrats have typically enjoyed in small-dollar donations.

The court will also decide before June whether states may receive mail ballots that arrive after Election Day – a case inspired by baseless allegations from President Donald Trump about widespread vote-by-mail fraud. In March, the court indicated during oral arguments that it was Read more

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The November election is still a long way off, but patience is already running thin at the Supreme Court.

An explosive exchange between three conservative justices and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson late Monday underscored a tension that has developed in voting cases as the court runs headlong into an election-heavy docket that will have far-reaching implications for the midterms.

Jackson accused the court of rolling over its “principles” in pursuit of influencing the November election.

Justice Samuel Alito fired back, calling that “insulting.” The conservative justice said Jackson’s dissent raised “trivial” and “baseless” arguments.

The heated back-and-forth over what amounted to a technical question about Louisiana’s congressional map comes as the high court is already juggling other appeals that could have consequences for this year’s election – not to mention a flood of short-fuse litigation expected this summer and fall.

“To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position,” Jackson wrote in a scathing dissent on Monday. “But, today, the court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation.”

“What principle has the court violated?” Alito fired back in a concurring opinion joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. “The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?”

Within the world of the Supreme Court, those words were unusually harsh, but it’s the latest example of tension behind the curtain slipping into public view.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal, issued a rare public apology last month for suggesting earlier that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s privileged upbringing influenced his approach to an emergency immigration case last year. A day earlier, Jackson spent more than an hour lambasting the court’s conservative majority for its handling of quick-turn cases.

More election decisions incoming

For decades, the Supreme Court cautioned courts against changing the rules of an election at the last minute. The “Purcell principle,” rooted in a 2006 Supreme Court decision, warns federal courts to avoid making late changes to the status quo.

But in the coming weeks, the court will rule on a Republican push to lift caps on how much money political parties may spend in coordination with candidates – a decision that could benefit Republicans by offsetting the advantage Democrats have typically enjoyed in small-dollar donations.

The court will also decide before June whether states may receive mail ballots that arrive after Election Day – a case inspired by baseless allegations from President Donald Trump about widespread vote-by-mail fraud. In March, the court indicated during oral arguments that it was prepared to side with Republicans in that appeal.

More immediately, the justices are being asked to decide in short order what to do with a request from Alabama to throw out a lower court decision that barred that state fr