Sydney court postpones extradition hearing of former US military pilot

A Sydney court on Monday postponed an extradition hearing for a former U.S. military pilot accused of illegally training Chinese aviators until May as his lawyers attempt to further build their case. Boston-born Dan Duggan, 55, was scheduled to fight his extradition to the United States at a Nov. 23 hearing in the downtown Downing Center Local Court. But a magistrate decided to use that date to rule on what additional information that the Australian defense department and security agencies should provide defense lawyers. U.S. lawyer Trent Glover told the court the United States was ready to proceed with the extradition, but had agreed with defense lawyers the hearing should take place after November. Duggan’s lawyer, Dennis Miralis, told reporters outside court that the stakes were high for his client, who faces up to 65 years in prison if convicted. “This is existential, which means that every right that Dan has under the Australian legal system on the basis that he’s presumed innocent ... needs to properly and carefully be considered,” Miralis said. Duggan’s wife, Saffrine, has said she asked Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to advocate against the extradition when he meets President Joe Biden in Washington this week. But in a news conference on Sunday before departing for the United States, Albanese said Duggan, who became an Australian citizen in 2012, was not on the agenda of his meetings with U.S. officials. “I don’t discuss things that are legal matters on the run, nor should I,” Albanese told reporters. Duggan has been in custody since Oct. 21 last year when he was arrested near his home in Orange, New South Wales.

Federal Judge rules California assault weapons ban unconstitutional

A federal judge who previously overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons did it again on Thursday, ruling that the state’s attempts to prohibit sales of semiautomatic guns violates the constitutional right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego conceded that powerful weapons like AR-15 rifles are commonly used by criminals, but said the guns are importantly also owned by people who obey the law and feel they need firearms to protect themselves. “The State of California posits that its ‘assault weapon’ ban, the law challenged here, promotes an important public interest of disarming some mass shooters even though it makes criminals of law-abiding residents who insist on acquiring these firearms for self-defense,” Benitez wrote. “Nevertheless, more than that is required to uphold a ban.” The judge’s ruling is nearly identical to a 2021 decision in which he called California’s ban on assault weapons a “failed experiment.” Benitez has has repeatedly struck down multiple California firearms laws. Just last month, he ruled the state cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Benitez’s latest decision would overturn multiple state statutes related to assault weapons. The judge gave the state 10 days to seek a stay on the ruling as part of an appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said his office had already filed a notice of appeal. “Weapons of war have no place on California’s streets,” Bonta said in a statement Thursday. “This has been state law in California for decades, and we will continue to fight for our authority to keep our citizens safe from firearms that cause mass casualties. In the meantime, assault weapons remain unlawful for purchase, transfer, or possession in California.” John Dillon, an attorney for the plaintiffs who sued to overturn the law, cheered the judge’s ruling.

Biden’s second try at student loan cancellation moves forward with debate

President Joe Biden’s second attempt at student loan cancellation began moving forward Tuesday with a round of hearings to negotiate the details of a new plan. In a process known as negotiated rulemaking, 14 people chosen by the Biden administration are meeting for the first of three hearings on student loan relief. Their goal is to guide the Education Department toward a proposal after the Supreme Court rejected Biden’s first plan in June. The negotiators all come from outside the federal government and represent a range of viewpoints on student loans. The panel includes students and officials from a range of colleges, along with loan servicers, state officials and advocates including the NAACP. In opening remarks, Under Secretary of Education James Kvaal said the student debt crisis has threatened to undercut the promise of higher education. “Student loan debt in this country has grown so large that it siphons off the benefits of college for many students,” Kvaal said in prepared remarks. “Some loans made to young adults stretch into retirement with no hope of being repaid. These debt burdens are shared by families and communities.” Biden directed the Education Department to find another path to loan relief after the conservative court ruled that he couldn’t cancel loans using a 2003 law called the HEROES Act. The latest attempt will rest on a sweeping law known as the Higher Education Act, which gives the education secretary authority to waive student loans — although how far that power extends is the subject of legal debate. The department is going through the negotiated rulemaking process to change or add federal rules clarifying how the secretary can cancel debt.