Thousands of Israelis rally against Netanyahu government

Tens of thousands of Israelis gathered in central Tel Aviv on Saturday night to protest plans by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government to overhaul the legal system and weaken the Supreme Court — a step that critics say will destroy the country’s democratic system of checks and balances. The protest presented an early challenge to Netanyahu and his ultranationalist national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has ordered police to take tough action if protesters block roads or display Palestinian flags. Israeli media, citing police, said the crowd at Tel Aviv’s Habima Square had swelled to 80,000 people by 9 p.m. despite cool, rainy weather. Protesters, many covered by umbrellas, held Israeli flags and signs saying “Criminal Government,” “The End of Democracy” and other slogans. There were no immediate reports of unrest. Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption charges, has made overhauling the country’s legal system a centerpiece of his agenda. In office for just over two weeks, his government has launched proposals to weaken the Supreme Court by giving parliament the power to overturn court decisions with a simple majority vote. It also wants to give parliament control over the appointment of judges and reduce the independence of legal advisers.

Top Brazil court greenlights probe of Bolsonaro for riot

A Brazilian Supreme Court justice on Friday authorized adding former President Jair Bolsonaro in its investigation into who incited the Jan. 8 riot in the nation’s capital, as part of a broader crackdown to hold responsible parties to account. According to the text of his ruling, Justice Alexandre de Moraes granted the request from the prosecutor-general’s office, which cited a video that Bolsonaro posted on Facebook two days after the riot. The video claimed President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva wasn’t voted into office, but rather was chosen by the Supreme Court and Brazil’s electoral authority. Prosecutors in the recently formed group to combat anti-democratic acts argued earlier Friday that although Bolsonaro posted the video after the riot, its content was sufficient to justify investigating his conduct beforehand. Bolsonaro deleted it the morning after he first posted it. Legal analysts consulted by The Associated Press said investigating Bolsonaro was overdue and justified. “Bolsonaro’s positioning, in general, is being investigated as an incitement method. The fact that the video was published after the attacks doesn’t mean he wasn’t involved previously in inciting the acts,” said Georges Abboud, a constitutional law professor at Sao Paulo’s Pontifical Catholic University.

State seeks long prison term for accused NYC subway gunman

Prosecutors plan to seek a decades-long prison sentence for a man who is expected to plead guilty this week to opening fire in a subway car and wounding 10 riders in an attack that shocked New York City. Frank James, 63, is scheduled to enter a guilty plea on Tuesday in Brooklyn federal court, admitting that he was responsible for the April 12 attack. It set off a massive 30-hour manhunt that ended when he called the police on himself. Prosecutors told Judge William F. Kuntz II in a letter late last week that they plan to ask him to go beyond the roughly 32-year to 39-year sentence that federal sentencing guidelines would recommend. James planned the attack for years and endangered the lives of dozens of people, prosecutors said in the letter. Defense attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday, when courts were closed to observe the New Year’s holiday. James had been scheduled to stand trial in late February. His lawyers informed the judge on Dec. 21 that James wanted to plead guilty. Prosecutors say he plans to plead guilty to 11 charges without a plea agreement. Ten of those charges — each one corresponding to a specific victim — accuse him of committing a terrorist attack against a mass transportation system carrying passengers and employees. The 11th charge accuses James of discharging a firearm during a violent crime. Kuntz issued an order last week instructing the U.S. Marshals Service to use “all necessary force” to ensure that James shows up at Tuesday’s plea proceeding, noting that James has refused to appear at past hearings. James, who is being held in a federal jail, balked at being taken to a court date in October but then appeared later that day, after Kuntz issued a similar order for him to be forced to court if necessary. In the subway attack, the shooter set off a pair of smoke grenades and then fired a barrage of random shots inside the train, bloodying passengers as it moved between stations. Before the shooting, James, who is Black, posted dozens of videos online in which he ranted about race, violence and his struggles with mental illness. In some, he decried the treatment of Black people and talked about how he was so frustrated, “I should have gotten a gun and just started shooting.”

FTX founder could be sent to US after extradition hearing

Sam Bankman-Fried is back in a Bahamian court Wednesday for an extradition hearing that could clear the way for the one-time billionaire to be sent to the U.S. to face criminal charges related to the collapse of cryptocurrency exchange FTX. In a court in Nassau, Bahamas, on Monday, Bankman-Fried’s lawyers said he had agreed to be extradited to the U.S., but the necessary paperwork had not yet been written up. If approved, Bankman-Fried could be on a plane to the U.S. as early as Wednesday afternoon. Bahamian authorities arrested Bankman-Fried last week at the request of the U.S. government. U.S. prosecutors allege he played a central role in the rapid collapse of FTX and hid its problems from the public and investors. The Securities and Exchange Commission said Bankman-Fried illegally used investors’ money to buy real estate on behalf of himself and his family. The 30-year-old could potentially spend the rest of his life in jail. Bankman-Fried was denied bail Friday after a Bahamian judge ruled that he posed a flight risk. The founder and former CEO of FTX, once worth tens of billions of dollars on paper, is being held in the Bahamas’ Fox Hill prison, which has been has been cited by human rights activists as having poor sanitation and as being infested with rats and insects. Once he’s back in the U.S., Bankman-Fried’s attorney will be able to request that he be released on bail.

Kentucky Supreme Court strikes down school choice law

School choice advocates suffered a bitter defeat Thursday, when Kentucky’s Supreme Court struck down a state law that allowed donors to receive tax credits for supporting private school tuition. In its unanimous decision, the high court said the 2021 measure violated the state’s constitution as the justices upheld a lower court ruling issued more than a year ago. The law’s opponents objected to using the state tax code to aid private education. The measure’s supporters said tax credits didn’t amount to government spending, even if they decrease revenues. The measure was narrowly passed by the Republican-dominated legislature over Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto. It created a form of scholarship tax credits — referred to by supporters as “education opportunity accounts.” Under the measure, private donors backing the accounts would be eligible for tax credits. The Supreme Court ultimately found that the formula violated the constitution. “We are compelled to agree that the EOA Act violates the plain language of Section 184” of the state constitution, Deputy Chief Justice Lisabeth T. Hughes said in writing for the court. “Simply stated, it puts the Commonwealth in the business of raising “sum(s) . . . for education other than in common schools.”

Lawsuit against doctor who defied Texas abortion law tossed

Lawyers for a doctor who intentionally defied a Texas abortion law that the lawyers called a “bounty-hunting scheme” say a court has dismissed a test of whether members of the public can sue providers who violate the restrictions for at least $10,000 in damages. Dr. Alan Braid published an opinion piece in the Washington Post last year revealing that he intentionally violated the Texas law shortly after it took effect in September 2021. The law bans abortions after roughly the sixth week of pregnancy and is only enforced through lawsuits filed by private citizens — although Texas subsequently banned abortions entirely after the fall of Roe v. Wade. Even though Texas now has a broader abortion ban, the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Braid, said the decision Thursday by a San Antonio court is still significant because it rejected that people with no connection to an abortion can sue. The dismissal was announced from the bench, and no formal written opinion had been published as of Friday morning. “When I provided my patient with the care she needed last year, I was doing my duty as a physician,” Braid said in a statement. “It is heartbreaking that Texans still can’t get essential health care in their home state and that providers are left afraid to do their jobs.” The lawsuit brought against Braid after he announced he had defied the Texas law was filed by Felipe N. Gomez, of Chicago, who asked the court to declare the law unconstitutional. He has said that he wasn’t aware he could claim at least $10,000 in damages if he won his lawsuit, and that if he had received any money, he likely would have donated it to an abortion rights group or to the patients of the doctor he sued.

Supreme Court weighs ‘most important case’ on democracy

The Supreme Court is about to confront a new elections case, a Republican-led challenge asking the justices for a novel ruling that could significantly increase the power of state lawmakers over elections for Congress and the presidency. The court is set to hear arguments Wednesday in a case from North Carolina, where Republican efforts to draw congressional districts heavily in their favor were blocked by a Democratic majority on the state Supreme Court because the GOP map violated the state constitution. A court-drawn map produced seven seats for each party in last month’s midterm elections in highly competitive North Carolina. The question for the justices is whether the U.S. Constitution’s provision giving state legislatures the power to make the rules about the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections cuts state courts out of the process. “This is the single most important case on American democracy — and for American democracy — in the nation’s history,” said former federal judge Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative who has joined the legal team defending the North Carolina court decision.