By Tierney Sneed, CNN

(CNN) — The Supreme Court on Monday punted on a fight over the ability of voters to bring Voting Rights Act lawsuits, dodging a major dispute over the landmark civil rights law that the conservative majority had already left on life support with a previous ruling this term.

The justices sent back to lower courts two cases that had teed up claims that only the Justice Department could bring enforcement actions under the law, which bars racial discrimination in voting.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a member of the court’s liberal wing, dissented from the decision – saying she would have summarily resolved the cases to make clear that individuals could bring the claims rather than handing them back to a lower court for further review.

Both cases were challenges that voters – not the Justice Department – had brought to redistricting plans. The justices told the lower courts to take another look at the lawsuits in light of the opinion the conservative majority issued this month that significantly raised the bar for when a Voting Rights Act redistricting case can succeed, but that did not address the cause-of-action question.

The move leaves a final answer on a question that would effectively kill the already thoroughly-weakened statute for another day.

Under President Donald Trump, the Justice Department has shown little interest in enforcing the Voting Rights Act and his administration had even argued in favor of the high court’s ruling this month that significantly narrowed the law’s reach in electoral map-drawing.

Courts have long assumed that private individuals could sue under the law in addition to the actions that the Justice Department is authorized to bring, and the Supreme Court has previously taken up VRA cases brought by voters. However, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch have signaled in writings in previous VRA cases that they believe it to be an open question.

In one of the cases, arising out of Mississippi, a lower court affirmed that individuals had the right to sue in court under the VRA. In the other dispute the justices were reviewing, the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that only the Justice Department could bring VRA cases.

The Supreme Court previously put that opinion – which set the precedent for Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, the Dakotas and Arkansas – on hold, over the dissent of Thomas, Gorsuch and Justice Samuel Alito.

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

The post Supreme Court puts off fight over who can sue to enforce what’s left of the Voting Rights Act appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to review a sex discrimination case from former NCAA basketball coach MaChelle Joseph, who alleged that Georgia Tech violated federal anti-discrimination laws by providing more resources for the men’s basketball team than for the women’s program.

Joseph, who was fired as head coach in 2019, sued under several laws, including Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. But workplace discrimination cases are typically brought instead under Title VII, which is specifically geared toward employment but which also includes additional requirements and caps on how much can be awarded in damages.

The question for the Supreme Court, which has divided federal appeals courts, is whether Joseph may bring her claims under Title IX. The answer will have important ramifications for both publicly funded schools, which could put them on the hook for larger damage awards in sex discrimination cases, and employees, who may have another avenue to pursue those claims – or have that route closed off.

Joseph told the Supreme Court that the case would have “far-reaching implications.”

A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2024 that Joseph could not rely on Title IX. The full appeals court declined to review that decision last year.

That ruling, Joseph said, “undermines the uniform enforcement of Title IX across the country.” And, she said, “it threatens to destabilize enforcement of antidiscrimination provisions under” other federal laws that bar discrimination but lack explicit language authorizing lawsuits to enforce those provisions.

The case is consolidated with a similar suit filed by Thomas Crowther, an art professor whose position on the faculty of Augusta University was not renewed in 2021 after reports of inappropriate conduct, including sexual harassment, according to court records. Crowther denied wrongdoing and argued that he was never given an adequate opportunity to contest the allegations.

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to take up the appeal to resolve the different approaches taken by federal appeals courts. The Department of Justice urged the Supreme Court to uphold the appeals court ruling against Joseph and Crowther.

The high court has expressed skepticism in past cases about people being able to file lawsuits absent an explicit authorization in the law passed by Congress.

“Title IX does not provide employees of federally funded educational institutions a private right of action to sue for sex discrimination in employment,” the Trump administration told the court.

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

The post Supreme Court to weigh appeal from former Georgia Tech basketball coach suing over sex discrimination appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

* WHAT…Dangerous rip currents and breaking waves due to
elevated surf expected.

* WHERE…Santa Barbara County Southwestern Coast and Santa
Barbara County Southeastern Coast.

* WHEN…Until 9 AM PDT this morning.

* IMPACTS…There is an increased risk of ocean drowning. Rip
currents can pull swimmers and surfers out to sea. Waves can
wash people off beaches and rocks, and capsize small boats
nearshore.

* ADDITIONAL DETAILS…Minor Beach erosion and isolated minor
coastal flooding is possible. Most likely during the evening
high tides (7pm to 11pm) Sunday night.
Remain out of the water due to hazardous swimming conditions, or
stay near occupied lifeguard towers. Rock jetties can be deadly
in such conditions, stay off the rocks.

The post Beach Hazards Statement issued May 18 at 7:02AM PDT until May 18 at 9:00AM PDT by NWS Los Angeles/Oxnard CA appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

The post California Colleges Went Big on Online Learning Tools. Then the Worst Happened appeared first on edhat.

By John Fritze, Tami Luhby, CNN

(CNN) — The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected a series of appeals from several of the nation’s largest drugmakers challenging a program that is expected to save taxpayers and the federal government billions of dollars by requiring the companies to negotiate with Medicare on the prices for some of their most popular drugs.

The court’s decision to deny the appeals, which it made without explanation, leaves in place several lower court rulings upholding the program that Congress enacted in 2022. Other lawsuits over the program are still pending.

At issue is a provision in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that allows Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain drugs for the first time after years of debate about whether such negotiation would effectively be government price fixing. Yet the rising cost of prescription drugs has added financial pressure on Medicare and its beneficiaries.

The drugmakers, including AstraZeneca and Janssen, said the program leads to a “sham negotiation” that violates their due process rights. Most also argued that the program violates the First Amendment because it compels them to “adopt the government’s narrative” of a negotiated agreement. Lower courts have rejected those arguments, noting that the companies are free to pull their products from government health programs.

In 2021 alone, the Trump administration told the Supreme Court, the federal government spent more than $250 billion on drugs covered by Medicare.

The first round of negotiations involved 10 drugs and is expected to lead to $6 billion in savings for the federal government and a $1.5 billion reduction in out-of-pocket costs for seniors, the Biden administration announced in 2024. The prices took effect in January.

Those drugs included Farxiga, made by AstraZeneca, which is used to treat diabetes, heart disease and kidney disease. Another drug included in that first round was Eliquis, a blood thinner made by Bristol Myers Squibb that is used to treat and prevent blood clots and strokes. For Farxiga, AstraZeneca told the Supreme Court that the negotiated process at the center of the case resulted in a 68% discount off its list price.

The second round, which covered 15 drugs, is projected to save Medicare about $12 billion and reduce enrollees’ out-of-pocket costs by $685 million when prices take effect next January, the Trump administration said in November. Negotiations for the third round are underway.

The medications are chosen from a list of eligible drugs with the highest total Medicare spending.

‘Grasping at constitutional straws’

Drugmakers and their allies have been fighting the Medicare drug price negotiations program in court for the past three years. Multiple lawsuits were filed in different districts across the US. All the decisions to date have gone against the industry, with judges ruling that participation in Medicare is voluntary and the