Search Results: how to act

"The suicide bomber made his away across Bagram air base in Afghanistan in 2016, heading toward a Veterans Day 5-K race featuring hundreds of U. S. soldiers. As U. S. Army Spec. Winston T. Hencely moved to grab the man, the bomber detonated an explosive-laden vest that left Hencely with severe injuries and killed six.

Hencely was credited with saving lives, and the military later concluded that a contractor, Fluor Corp., which employed the suicide bomber, had failed to properly supervise the man before the attack.

Under federal law, Hencely cannot sue the military for his injuries. And when he sued Fluor for negligence, courts dismissed his case, saying federal law preempted it as well.

On Monday, the Supreme Court grappled with Hencely’s last-ditch appeal to revive his lawsuit. The case will determine what recourse soldiers hurt in combat zones might have if they allege that contractors — a fast-growing part of military operations — are responsible for their injuries.

The case revolves around the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which in some instances waives the sovereign immunity the government typically enjoys against lawsuits. The law sets up some clear barriers to suits, including those related to “combatant activities” during “time of war.”

In 1988 SCOTUS held that the tort law barred suits against military contractors when the claims involve a “uniquely federal interest.”.

Mark Mosier, an attorney for Fluor, told the justices the readiness of the U. S. military to fight a war could be undermined by suits like Hencely’s because trust between the military and contractors is paramount.

“The purpose of tort law is to discourage risk-taking, but waging war often requires contractors to take risks, putting their lives and the lives of others in danger,” Mosier said. “Petitioner’s claims also weaken the military’s control over combat operations. Contractors are part of the total force, and the military cannot successfully wage war without them.”

NYS Republicans file federal lawsuit challenging planned switch to even years for local elections

GOP officials are trying to get federal courts to intervene after a similar lawsuit failed in state courts. Just two weeks ago, New York's top court ruled the law constitutional in a 7-0 decision.

The suit argues moving county, town and other elections to even-numbered years is a violation of candidates' free speech rights. The plaintiffs claim the fact that local candidates will be trying to communicate with voters at the same time as statewide and national candidates amounts to an illegal restriction.

The law "imposes a direct and substantial burden on core political speech and association under the First Amendment - not merely by raising costs, but by degrading visibility, distorting content and increasing bias in the act of voting. This burden cannot be justified by generalized appeals to convenience."

Their other primary claim is that the switch will "exacerbate racially polarized voting" and, therefore, violates federal voting rights laws. The Republicans assert: that "minority-preferred candidates... will face reduced visibility and increased racially polarized voting, resulting in minority voters losing the ability to elect candidates of their choosing."

The Democratic-led State Legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, enacted the law making the switch in 2023. Democrats and good-government groups noted voter turnout is always better in even-numbered years, so the law would boost participation. Also, Democrats in New York have higher turnout in even-numbered years.

Republicans opposed, saying local races and candidates would be overlooked by voters. Also, the GOP historically had seen better turnout numbers than their rivals in odd-numbered years.

Insurers have increased rates significantly for next year — an average of about 30 percent for a typical plan in the 30 states where the federal government manages markets, and an average of 17 percent in states that run their own markets, according to a new analysis from KFF, the health research group.

If the funding expires, costs will go up for more than 20 million Americans who currently buy their own insurance in the marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act.

Since Congress first passed the extra subsidies in 2021, enrollment in the markets has doubled. Growth has been especially robust in the South, with sign-ups more than tripling in the Republican-controlled states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia and West Virginia.