Megan Thee Stallion delves into MEGAN the person on her brand-new album, released under Hot Girl Productions. The project boasts 18 tracks, including previously-released songs “Cobra,” “BOA” and “Hiss,” and featuresVictoria Monét, Big K.R.I.T., Kyle Richh and partner of her Hot Girl Summer Tour, GloRilla.
Meg also teamed with UGK on a song titled “Paper Together,” featuring a posthumous verse from one of her favorite rappers: Pimp C. Additionally, Yuki Chiba, who Meg worked with in Tokyo earlier this year, appears on the album in a track titled “Mamushi.”
MEGAN, now available on digital services, comes after the extension of her Hot Girl Summer Tour, which sees Meg’s return to Atlanta and Charlotte, as well as an appearance at Lollapalooza. She also announced a few dates in Europe and the U.K. in July.
According to Taraji P. Henson, who saw Meg perform in LA, the concert is “amazing.” “That was my first time seeing her perform live on her stage, headlining. She’s amazing,” Henson told People. “She has been able to withstand all of the adversity and rise above it. She’s incredible. I love you, Megan, and I’m so proud of you. That’s my baby girl, by the way.”
“I’m like auntie, you know? I’m a girl’s girl. Anything women are doing, I’m there,” she continued. “I’m the cheerleader. I’m the loudest one in the front cheering them on, and that’s what you should be as an elder.”
She added, “Be here for these babies! You know, it’s hard enough out here for women, and what I’m not gonna be is another obstacle for another woman. So, I’m a champion. I’m a team player. I’m a girl’s girl. Go Meg. Go Meg. I got you. I love you.”
(NEW YORK) — Severe storms ravaged the country from Montana to Florida on Thursday, with winds gusting to 91 mph in South Dakota and hail as large as golf balls in Montana.
In Melbourne, Florida, a tornado ripped through a neighborhood, damaging homes.
“Fortunately no one was injured,” Melbourne Mayor Paul Alfrey wrote Thursday night. “Although some of the area is without power [Florida Power & Light] is en route and will be working through the evening replacing power poles and downed lines.”
On Friday, the severe weather is forecast to impact Colorado to Iowa, bringing damaging winds and large hail.
The highest tornado threat will be in the Kansas City area.
The severe weather will move east on Saturday, ripping through Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo, New York. Damaging winds, hail and isolated tornadoes are possible.
By Sunday, the severe weather will hit the Interstate 95 corridor, including Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City and Boston. Damaging winds will be the biggest threat.
(WASHINGTON) — A small group of New Jersey herring fishermen landed a huge catch at the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday, writing for a 6-3 majority, significantly reeled in the power of federal regulators, tossing out a 40-year precedent on agency authority and a Commerce Department rule that the fishermen said could drive them out of business.
The opinion — officially overturning a 1984 decision known as “Chevron” — creates a big splash, making it much easier for businesses and other interests to challenge rules touching every aspect of American life from food inspections, workplace safety, tax collection, environmental regulation and more.
The case involved a regulation by the National Marine Fisheries Service ordering some commercial herring fishermen to pay the salaries of government observers federal law requires they carry aboard their vessels.
The law — the Magnuson-Stevens Act — does not spell out how the observers, who collect scientific data on the nation’s fisheries, should be funded. The agency had argued the law’s ambiguity supported its interpretation that the boat operators must pay in some instances.
Lower courts upheld the regulation citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, which held, in part, that courts should defer to the scientific and health experts at agencies when a law isn’t clear, so long as their regulations are reasonable.
Roberts said that holding was an error and that judges, not bureaucrats, should interpret what an ambiguous law does or does not allow.
“Chevron is overruled,” he wrote. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the [Administrative Procedures Act] requires.”
“Careful attention to the judgement of the Executive Branch [agency] may inform that inquiring. And when a particular statute delegates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it,” Roberts continued. “But courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”
The ruling deals the biggest blow to the administrative state in a generation and hands a long-sought victory to conservative legal groups and business lobbyists who have spent years pushing for the court to strike down what is known as “Chevron deference” and rein in agency power.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the decision would cause a “massive shock to the legal system,” since more than 17,000 disputes over federal regulations over the past 40 years have relied on the Chevron doctrine — most decided in the government’s favor.
The discarding of precedent, Kagan wrote, would supplant the expertise of subject-matter specialists at all levels of government.
“It gives courts the power to make all manner of scientific and technical judgments. It gives courts the power to make all manner of policy calls, including about how to weigh competing goods and values. It puts courts at the apex of the administrative process as to every conceivable subject,” she wrote.
Public interest groups said tens of thousands of government rules could be called into question, touching everything from the environment to workplace safety to technology and health care.
“How far-reaching the decision is remains to be seen,” said Gordon Todd, a Supreme Court litigator with Sidley and federal regulatory law expert. “The Court sought to minimize the retroactive impact of its decision by noting that prior decisions that relied on Chevron deference are themselves entitled to ‘statutory stare decisis,’ but it remains to be seen the extent to which such decisions remain valid.”
“In the short-run we expect a significant increase in regulatory litigation, including challenges to existing regulations, ongoing rulemakings, and existing precedents,” Todd said.
Jerry Masoudi, former chief counsel of the Food and Drug Administration, said the ruling was a dramatic shift in the balance of power between agencies and courts.
“These decisions will not affect FDA’s case-by-case decisions on scientific issues, like product approvals,” Masoudi said in a statement, “but rules underlying these processes may be open to broader challenge.”
Environmental groups were particularly alarmed by the Supreme Court’s decision, warning that scientific experts could now be overridden by judges with little familiarity with the subjects they are addressing.
“The American people really rely on our public institutions to put protections in place for clean air and water, for, our health and our children’s health, for safe and secure homes and businesses. And what this really means is that our ability to rely on expertise and science to make those decisions and put those protections in place is really in jeopardy now,” said Meredith Moore, the director of the Fish Conservation Program at the Ocean Conservancy, in an interview with ABC News.
“What we’re going to see is lots and lots of lawsuits, taking on everything that the government does from health and safety to the environment to tech issues like AI and our cybersecurity,” Moore added.
As for the herring fishermen, one practical impact of the ruling means they will be spared a potential fee of up to $700 a day.
“Today’s restoration of the separation of powers is a victory for small, family-run businesses like ours, whether they’re involved in fishing, farming, or retail,” said Bill Bright, a third generation herring fisherman in Cape May, New Jersey, and plaintiff in the case.
“Congress never authorized industry-funded monitoring in the herring fishery. And agency efforts to impose such funding hurts our ability to make an honest living. Nothing is more important than protecting the livelihoods of our families and crews.”
Guests at the Old Town Pour House watch a debate between President Joe Biden and presumptive Republican nominee former President Donald Trump on June 27, 2024 in Chicago, Illinois. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — After President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump faced off during the first presidential debate of the 2024 election cycle, swing state voters were quick to weigh in on the candidates’ performances.
Dan Olszewski — a self-proclaimed socially liberal and fiscally conservative Republican entrepreneur from Wisconsin — said he was the kind of voter who helped secure a victory for Biden in his home state during the 2020 election.
Olszewski said he supported Nikki Haley in the GOP primary this election cycle and won’t support Trump after Jan. 6, however, he reached out to ABC News Thursday night to vent over Biden’s debate performance.
“This is an unmitigated disaster for Biden. Shockingly bad,” he wrote.
Olszewski said the debate didn’t change how he plans to vote, but he doesn’t think Biden has done himself any favors.
“Doesn’t change my perspective since inept is better than evil but not sure how it can help any undecided go toward Biden,” he told ABC News.
In the swing state of North Carolina, voters were sharply divided on the candidates’ debate performances.
At a watch party organized by the Biden campaign, some voters were adamant that Biden had a strong debate performance, while others expressed reservations to ABC News.
“It’s obvious he’s old. He’s over 80 and that’s obvious throughout the debate. However, he’s had several amazing moments,” said Garrett Warner.
When asked by ABC News which moments particularly stuck out to Warner, he said, “I can’t remember any in specific, but there were several moments where Donald Trump said an outrageous thing.”
At a GOP watch party in North Carolina, River Collins told ABC News that Trump won the debate: “You see how articulate he is. He’s very disciplined. President Biden is all over the place. He’s losing his words. He’s saying the wrong words. He’s confused.”
Shannon Flemming, a Biden supporter, told ABC News, “I can tell he’s being very careful with how he speaks and some people might interpret that as being feeble, but we have to remember he has a speech impediment, and therefore, take that into consideration.”
Speaking with ABC News’ White House correspondent MaryAlice Parks, a former Nikki Haley caucus leader in Iowa, who said she once laughed out loud at the idea of voting for Trump, thought Biden’s performance was a “disaster,” quipping, “I mean wow.”
Thaila Flores from New Hampshire walked away from watching the debate disappointed and confused, telling ABC News, “The RNC and DNC are to blame for this.”
“All they are doing is arguing over who was the worst president. Biden can’t process his thoughts and Trump has not answered a question,” Flores said.
With less than a five-month countdown to Election Day, and recent projections from 538 placing the candidates at a near-tie among polled voters, the presidential debates are poised to be make-or-break events for Biden or Trump.
The CNN debate marked the first of two debates in the general election season. The second will be hosted by ABC News on Sept. 10.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that a local ordinance to bar anyone without a permanent residency from sleeping outside does not amount to “cruel and unusual” punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
The 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch reversed an appeals court ruling that found an outdoor camping ban in Grants Pass, Oregon to be unconstitutional.
“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it,” Gorsuch wrote. “At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not.”
The case was the biggest test for the high court on the complicated and multifaceted issue of homeless rights in more than 40 years.
The decision is expected to have ripple effects nationwide in communities that have been grappling with a surge in homeless encampments amidst an unprecedented uptick in the number of unhoused residents. An estimated 600,000 people are homeless on a given night, according to the nation’s point-in-time survey.
“The Court has now restored the ability of cities on the frontlines of this crisis to develop lasting solutions that meet the needs of the most vulnerable members of their communities, while also keeping our public spaces safe and clean,” said Grants Pass attorney Theane Evangelis.
Gorsuch’s opinion concluded that ordinances like the one challenged in Grants Pass are not inherently cruel or unusual, and do not punish people based on their status but rather their conduct.
The city has wanted to assess a $295 fine for people sleeping outside. Individuals who receive multiple violations may be ordered from public property and arrested and jailed if they don’t comply.
“Different governments may use these laws in different ways and to varying degrees,” Gorsuch wrote, “but many broadly agree that policymakers need access to the full panoply of tools in the policy toolbox to tackle the complicated issues of housing and homelessness.”
Notably, the court made clear that homeless people are not without potential defenses against criminal charges for sleeping outsides when they have nowhere else to go, as Gorsuch said: “Nothing in today’s decision prevents states, cities, and counties from going a step further and declining to criminalize public camping altogether.”
A recent Oregon state law forbids the punishment of sleeping in public when a person has no available shelter. It is not immediately clear whether the Grants Pass ordinance can still be enforced.
“While this decision is disappointing, it is important to remember that the solution to America’s homeless crisis does not rest with the courts. That job falls to all of us,” said Ed Johnson, the director of litigation at the Oregon Law Center and lead counsel for the homeless people challenging the law. “The solution to our homelessness crisis is more affordable housing.”
Johnson said the Supreme Court also left open the possibility of other constitutional challenges to homeless camping bans under the Constitution’s excessive fines clause and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued the ordinance punishes homeless people with nowhere else to go based on status.
“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” Sotomayor wrote. “For some people, sleeping outside is their only option. The city of Grants Pass jails and fines those people for sleeping anywhere in public at any time, including in their cars, if they use as little as a blanket to keep warm or a rolled-up shirt as a pillow. For people with no access to shelter, that punishes them for being homeless. That is unconscionable and unconstitutional.”
“The Constitution provides a baseline of rights for all Americans rich and poor, housed and unhoused,” Sotomayor added.
The decision was hailed by a bipartisan group of civic leaders and municipalities, especially across the West, which has seen a proliferation of encampments in recent years.
President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump participate in the CNN Presidential Debate, June 27, 2024, in Atlanta. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The nation watched as President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump squared up Thursday evening in the first presidential debate of the 2024 general election.
While this debate wasn’t the first time the two candidates contended over issues ranging from immigration and the economy to abortion access — this presidential debate saw the two candidates forced to follow the rules.
Ahead of the debate, held in a studio at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters, both campaigns agreed to a set of guidelines established by CNN, which included muted microphones, no live studio audience and restricting the candidates from consulting with their teams during commercial breaks.
Biden and Trump were given two minutes to answer each question and one minute for rebuttal.
While the microphone muting kept the cross-fire between the candidates orderly, the debate’s strict time guidelines seemingly made for less pushback from the event’s moderators, CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.
The debate saw Biden and Trump continuously calling each other a “liar,” but with little-to-no live fact-checking by the moderators.
“This debate is a master-class in what’s wrong with our media-saturated, horse-race obsessed politics,” Robert. E Kelly, a professor of political science, wrote on X Thursday.
“Trump is just lying and making stuff up but he says it ‘vigorously’ and doesn’t get fact-checked. Therefore he’s winning,” Kelly wrote, adding, “We’ll spend the next month debating Biden’s age rather than Trump’s staggering incompetence.”
Another viewer suggested the debate format should feature a “buzzer” that would go off every time the candidates said a false statement.
“We need a buzzer to go off every time a false statement is made by a candidate,” Amee Vanderpool, a political writer, wrote on X.
“Until then any debate in this format, with moderators who refuse to fact check statements in real time, is a waste of time,” Vanderpool said.
Other users took to social media to applaud the format, saying the microphones being cut brought order to the debate stage that wasn’t seen during the 2020 election cycle.
“I want to give CNN credit. The debate format is fantastic,” Leo Terrell, a civil rights attorney, wrote on X.
“I’ve never seen fewer complaints about the debate format or moderators before,” Noam Blum said on X, adding, “Taking away the audience and preventing people from talking over each other just works.”
The first 2020 debate between Biden and Trump spiraled into near-constant interruptions and candidates speaking at the same time. At one point, Biden turned to Trump and told him, “Will you shut up, man?”
Ahead of Thursday’s debate, experts told ABC News the rules could make for a more substantive, issue-focused debate.
“Despite the fact that these rules are pretty strict, we’re going to see some fireworks,” Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston, told ABC News last week.
The CNN debate marked the first of two debates in the general election season. The second will be hosted by ABC News on Sept. 10.
With less than a five-month countdown to Election Day, and recent projections from 538 placing the candidates at a near-tie among polled voters, the presidential debates are poised to be make-or-break events for Biden or Trump.
