By Issy Ronald, CNN

London (CNN) — Britain’s new Prime Minister Andy Burnham entered 10 Downing Street on Monday, making few detailed policy statements but offering plenty of clues about the nature of his premiership.

Optics mean a great deal in politics, so on Burnham’s first day in the job, he delivered bold pledges, without constraining himself to timelines, showcased a more informal style of leadership and brought with him a more upbeat mood to Downing Street.

Ambitious goals

Alongside lofty promises of change, welfare reform and devolution of power, Burham announced his first policy intervention – to tackle homelessness.

“I will soon go through that door behind me and issue my first instruction to end rough sleeping in our country,” he said at the end of his first address as prime minister. Shortly afterward, his team announced an extra £340 million ($457 million) would be allocated as part of this drive.

“The Prime Minister rejects the notion that ending rough sleeping will take decades or that it can’t be done at all,” a line in the accompanying statement said, illustrating the scope of Burnham’s ambition. At least 4,600 people in England sleep rough every night, according to homeless charity Shelter, but the number of those experiencing homelessness is far higher.

While Starmer typically eschewed such maximalist goals in favor of narrower ones that were more likely to be achieved, Burnham seemed willing to tout bolder objectives. Whether such goals can be achieved, and whether failing to achieve them will corrode public support, is another matter.

Burnham never managed to achieve a similar pledge he made to end homelessness in Manchester when he became the city’s mayor in 2017. According to local government figures, homelessness in the city almost halved by 2024 from 2017, though those numbers are rising again from their lowest point in 2021.

“I will give this my all,” he said in front of dozens of cheering supporters. “Let’s build a new national sense of unity, of common purpose, and positivity.”

Burnham said he would lay out a 10-year plan “later this year” but will outline smaller measures to offer “some help with the cost of living” from Tuesday. Without detailing policies, he also listed the priorities for his government – helping push more young people into work and building more council homes. And he repeated his frequent argument that Britain took “some wrong turns” in the 1980s when “political power was centralized (and) economic power privatized.”

Burnham’s northern roots are fundamental to his “man-of-the-people” image and he has made devolution – moving power away from London to other British towns – a central part of his agenda. Although he did not explicitly refer to the north in his speech, he spoke about his aim “to take power out of here and carry it into every postcode in the land.”

Later on Monday, Burnham is expected to begin announcing his Cabinet appointments, offering a further indication of his government’s direction.

More informal style

Some signs of Burnham’s intention to operate differently emerged on his first day too. He delivered his first prime ministerial speech outside Downing Street without a prompter, notes or the traditional lectern. It seemed more informal, more natural than his predecessors.

However, instead of his usual trademark T-shirt and jacket, Burnham was dressed in the traditional politi

The post California restricts utility shutoffs as dangerous heat ripples across state appeared first on edhat.

The post Lights Up! Theatre Company Announces 2026-2027 Season — Auditions & Enrollment Open Now! appeared first on The Santa Barbara Independent.

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear an appeal from an Alaskan bush pilot whose plane was seized by authorities after they discovered it was bound for a remote, dry village with beer on board.

The appeal from the 82-year-old pilot, Kenneth Jouppi, could have national implications if the 6-3 conservative court limits the ability of state and local governments to rely on asset forfeiture. Jouppi claims that the taking of his $95,000 Cessna for what amounted to a six-pack of beer violated the 8th Amendment’s bar on excessive fines.

The Supreme Court is likely to hear oral arguments in the case later this year or early next — and hand down a decision by next summer.

“The Excessive Fines Clause of the Constitution was built for cases like this,” said Sam Gedge, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which is representing the pilot. “As government agencies increasingly exploit fines and forfeitures to pad their budgets, it’s vital that the Supreme Court make clear that the Excessive Fines Clause is a meaningful check on government overreach.”

Jouppi says that the Budweiser and Bud Light found on his plane, which was packaged with other groceries, belonged to a passenger. He said that most of it was out of sight, but state police said one six-pack was in plain view inside a grocery bag. One trooper claimed that Jouppi would “have to be blind” not to have seen at least some of the alcohol and that “pilots with that bad of eyesight just don’t fly.”

Alaska told the Supreme Court that officials face “unique difficulties in combating alcohol abuse and its consequences” in remote parts of the state. The village at issue, Beaver, is home to fewer than 100 people and is “off the road system.” The community banned the sale and possession of alcohol more than two decades ago.

“Given that many communities are accessible primarily by air, the legislature provided that any airplane used to illegally import alcohol into a dry community was subject to forfeiture,” the state told the Supreme Court.

Jouppi was convicted of alcohol importation, a misdemeanor. State police executed a search warrant on his plane in Fairbanks before it was to take off for Beaver.

Jouppi argues that under the 8th Amendment’s bar on excessive fines, courts must consider the “gravity of the specific defendant’s wrongdoing.” In his case, he said, that didn’t happen and his “airplane [was] forfeited for a six-pack.”

The Supreme Court has had a number of opportunities in recent years to consider questions about what constitutes an excessive fine but has resolved those appeals on narrower grounds.

In late June, a unanimous court allowed a Michigan family to continue fighting a county’s decision to sell its home for $76,008 at public auction even though the property was assessed at more than $194,000. But that decision skirted the broader constitutional questions the case had raised about excessive fines.

Critics, including the libertarian Cato Institute, hope the court will use the case to limit what it has described as abuses of forfeiture laws.

“Billions of dollars have been generated for the government through civil and criminal forfeitures,” the group told the Supreme Court in a brief last year. “And because it is expensive and time-consuming for defendants to challenge forfeitures in court, successfully asserting Eighth Amendment rights is difficult.”

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

The post Supreme Court to hear from Alaskan bush pilot whose plane was confiscated

Por Chelsea Bailey, CNN

Cuando Patrick Clancy salió de su casa en Duxbury, Massachusetts, el 24 de enero de 2023, no tenía forma de saber que un rápido mandado para recoger comida para llevar y un medicamento para su hija cambiaría su vida para siempre.

Cuando regresó a la casa de estilo colonial en Summer Street que compartía con su esposa, Lindsay, y sus tres hijos, encontró la vivienda inusualmente silenciosa, según contaría más tarde a la Policía.

Mientras buscaba a su familia, Patrick intentó entrar a su dormitorio, pero la puerta estaba cerrada con llave, diría después. Cuando por fin logró entrar, vio sangre en la habitación y la ventana del segundo piso abierta.

Salió corriendo y encontró a Lindsay tendida en el suelo, debajo de la ventana. Tenía lesiones en las muñecas y el cuello.

Desesperado, llamó al 911.

“¿Qué hiciste?”, le preguntó Patrick a su esposa, según relataría posteriormente un fiscal adjunto del condado de Plymouth al describir la llamada grabada.

Lindsay le respondió que había intentado suicidarse.

“¿Dónde están los niños?”, preguntó Patrick.

“En el sótano”, respondió ella.

Momentos después, Patrick Clancy “podía escucharse gritando de agonía y conmoción mientras encontraba a sus hijos”, dijo la fiscal Jennifer Sprague.

Los agentes encontraron a Cora, de 5 años; Dawson, de 3, y Callan, de 8 meses, inconscientes. Era evidente que los tres habían sido estrangulados, testificaron posteriormente los agentes en declaraciones juradas.

Los niños fueron trasladados a hospitales de la zona, donde finalmente todos fueron declarados muertos.

Lindsay Clancy, quien quedó paralizada por las lesiones sufridas en su intento de suicidio, fue acusada de tres cargos de asesinato y estrangulamiento por la muerte de sus hijos.

Su juicio comenzará el lunes.

Clancy, una exenfermera de trabajo de parto y parto en un hospital de Boston reconocido a nivel nacional, se declaró no culpable. Permanece recluida en el hospital público Tewksbury, en Massachusetts.

Aunque sí mató a sus hijos, no debería ser declarada penalmente responsable de asesinato, ha dicho su abogado, Kevin Reddington, en audiencias judiciales incluso tan recientemente como en junio.

Y aunque existen precedentes para ese tipo de argumento, expertos dijeron a CNN que la defensa de Clancy podría enfrentar una batalla cuesta arriba.

Clancy, de 35 años, había luchado durante mucho tiempo contra la depresión. Incluso ingresó voluntariamente en un hospital psiquiátrico de la zona menos de un mes antes de la muerte de sus hijos, dijo Reddington. Sus médicos iniciaron y suspendieron distintos medicamentos para tratar la depresión, los cuales, según su abogado, agravaron sus síntomas.

“Nuestra sociedad fracasa estrepitosamente al tratar a las mujeres con depresión posparto o incluso con psicosis posparto”, dijo Reddington durante una audiencia de instrucción de cargos en 2023. “Esta es una situación que claramente fue producto de una enfermedad mental”.

A lo largo de las audiencias previas al juicio, Reddington ha dejado claro que planea argumentar que Clancy no debe ser considerada “penalmente responsable” por la muerte de sus hijos porque sufría un trastorno extremo de salud mental.

Reddington y los fiscales estatales debatieron en junio sobre qué pruebas periciales serían admisibles si decidía presentar esa defensa, conocida comúnmente como una “declaración de inimputabilidad por demencia”.

Los miembros del jurado deberían “escuchar por qué Patrick Clancy y su esposa Lindsay acudieron a consultar a médicos por la depresión, por la vida que ella llevaba, una de un sufrimiento terrible a causa de los medicamentos”, argumentó Reddington durante una audiencia en junio.

Los fiscales rechazaron ese planteamiento y señalaron que podrían presentar a sus propios expertos