Rob Reiner autopsy report not ready, court hears

(The Center Square) – The Federal Reserve wrapped up what could be its last meeting under current Chair Jerome Powell on Wednesday with a decision to hold rates steady, in line with market predictions.

This marks the third consecutive meeting where the board has maintained a target interest rate of 3.5%–3.75%.

The central bank often raises interest rates to tame inflation and lowers them if economic growth is too slow. While oil and gas prices have risen dramatically in the past couple months pushing inflation higher above the Fed’s target rate of 2%, other parts of the economy aren’t seeing as much movement.

“The U.S. economy has been expanding at a solid pace. While job gains have remained low, the unemployment rate has been little changed in recent months,” Powell explained Wednesday with the rate announcement. “We see the current stance of monetary policy as appropriate to promote progress toward our maximum employment and 2% inflation goals.”

Ongoing conflict at the Strait of Hormuz makes it difficult to tell when global energy prices will return to levels closer to what they were before Operation Epic Fury.

Wednesday also saw Fed Chair nominee Kevin Warsh clear the last hurdle in his confirmation process before the final Senate vote, with the Senate Banking Committee voting 13-11 to advance his nomination to the full chamber. The final vote is expected to take place within the next few weeks.

Warsh is President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace Powell, whose term ends on May 15. Powell has often been the object of Trump’s wrath, as the Fed’s rate cuts have not been as aggressive or as fast as the president would like.

Trump has long talked about firing Powell before his term expired, despite the independent nature of the central bank, and the Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation into Powell’s oversight of the Federal Reserve headquarters’ renovations, as there were cost overruns between $600 million and $700 million. The department handed its investigation over to the Fed’s inspector general just days ago, after opening it in January.

Warsh previously served on the Federal Reserve board from 2006 to 2011.

A divided US Supreme Court on Wednesday weighed the Trump administration's move to strip deportation protections from hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians living in the United States.

Solicitor General John Sauer told the court the Department of Homeland Security's decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians was not subject to judicial review.

Lawyers for Haitian and Syrian TPS holders countered that conditions in their home countries remained unsafe and the administration's move was motivated at least in part by racial animus.

A majority of the six conservative justices on the top court appeared to favor the government's arguments while the three liberal justices were seemingly opposed.

TPS protects its holders from deportation and is granted to people deemed to be in danger if they return home because of war, natural disaster or other extraordinary circumstances.

President Donald Trump campaigned for the White House on a pledge to expel millions of migrants and has pushed to dismantle the TPS program as part of his broader immigration crackdown.

A ruling in the case could have implications for more than one million beneficiaries of TPS status from more than a dozen countries.

"We're talking about the power to mass expel people who have done nothing wrong to countries that remain unsafe," said Ahilan Arulanantham, a lawyer representing the Syrian TPS holders in the case.

TPS status has been revoked for nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Honduras, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Venezuela, Yemen, and others in addition to Haitians and Syrians since Trump took office.

- 'Discriminatory' -

Haitians became eligible for TPS in 2010 following a devastating earthquake, and the country continues to suffer from severe poverty, rampant violence from heavily armed gangs and chronic political instability.

The State Department advises Americans not to travel to the Caribbean nation "due to kidnapping, crime, civil unrest and limited health care."

TPS was extended to war-torn Syria in 2012.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, asked Sauer whether a "discriminatory purpose may have played a part" in the decision to strip TPS status from Haitians and referred to statements by Trump.

"We have a president saying at one point that Haiti is a quote filthy, dirty and disgusting s-hole country -- I'm quoting him -- and where he complained that the United States takes people from such countries instead of people from Norway, Sweden or Denmark," Sotomayor said.

Sauer replied that the president's comments were being taken out of context and he was referring to "problems of crime, poverty and welfare dependency."

He said court review of TPS decisions was barred to prevent "judicial micromanagement" of foreign policy determinations.

- DNA sample and a will -

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, another liberal, asked to what extent country conditions are taken into account in deciding to remove TPS status.

Safety is considered, Sauer said, but so is "whether allowing the aliens to stay here would be contrary to the United States national interest."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, noted that TPS was granted to Syrians during the era of the "brutal" Assad regime and it has since been deposed.

Arulanantham, the lawyer for the Syrians, said the State Department's website says armed conflict in Syria "remains active."

"Their own website is saying, 'If you go to Syria, leave a DNA sample, execute a will before you go,'" Arulanantham said.

Geoffrey Pipoly, representing Haitian TPS holders, said the "true reason" for terminating their TPS status is the "president's racial animus towards non-white immigrants."

"The president has disparaged Haitian TPS holders specifically as undesirables from a quote, shithole country, and -- days after falsely accusing them of, quote, eating the dogs and eating the cats of Americans -- he vowed that he would terminate Haiti's TPS," Pipoly said.

"And that is exactly what happened," he added.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case by the end of June or early July.

cl/msp

Autopsy reports into the deaths of US movie director Rob Reiner and his wife have not yet been completed, a Los Angeles court heard Wednesday, as the couple's son made a brief appearance charged with their murders.

Nick Reiner, who wore a yellow jail top and blue jail pants, faces two counts of first-degree murder over the double killing that sent shockwaves through Hollywood days before Christmas.

The 32-year-old was arrested on December 14 after the bodies of his filmmaker father and his mother, photographer Michele Singer Reiner, were discovered at their home in the upmarket Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles.

Prosecutors said 79-year-old Rob Reiner -- who helmed huge hits including "When Harry Met Sally" and "A Few Good Men" -- and his wife, 70, were stabbed to death.

Nick Reiner appeared Wednesday for a hearing that had been intended to determine if there was enough evidence for him to stand trial.

However, attorneys said they were still gathering evidence, with a prosecutor telling the judge that autopsy reports were still pending.

Reiner, who has a history of addiction, has previously pleaded "not guilty" to the charges. He was ordered to return to court on September 15 and remains in jail in the meantime.

If convicted as charged, Reiner could face life in prison without parole, or the death penalty, although California does not typically carry out capital punishment. 

Last week, his brother paid emotional tribute to the men's parents, calling their deaths "almost too impossible to process."

"We lost more than half of our family that night in the most violent way imaginable," Jake Reiner wrote in his first detailed public remarks about the gruesome killings. 

"Any loss of a parent is devastating, but nothing compares to losing both of them at the same time and, on top of that, having your brother be at the center of it," he wrote in a Substack post titled "Mom and Dad."

Rob Reiner, the son of legendary comedian Carl Reiner, started his showbiz career in acting.

He won fame as the oafish son-in-law Michael "Meathead" Stivic on groundbreaking 1970s sitcom "All in the Family," before transitioning to directing. 

As a director, he struck Hollywood gold.

His output included classic films like 1984's rock music mockumentary "This is Spinal Tap," fantasy gem "The Princess Bride" from 1987, and seminal coming-of-age movie "Stand By Me."

"A Few Good Men," starring Hollywood heavyweights Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson, earned an Oscar nomination for Best Picture.

hg/msp

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court appeared skeptical of immigrant’s challenges to the Trump administration’s termination of temporary protected status in Haiti and Syria.

Justices on the high court heard arguments in Trump v. Miot and Mullin v. Doe, cases that challenge the special immigration status for immigrants from Syria and Haiti, respectively. A coalition of immigrants from both countries brought the challenges after the administration eliminated the protected status in 2025.

Temporary protected status is granted to immigrants from countries that have experienced a national disaster or war. The justices were charged with determining whether a lower court judge could strike down a designation made by the executive branch.

Lawyers for the Haitian and Syrian immigrants said the Trump administration did not properly consult other executive agencies or issue a notice before former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem terminated the status.

Congress requires the DHS Secretary to consult other agencies, including the Department of State, before it ends temporary protected status. The law does not specify what those consultations must look like.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether the consultation would need to be specifically related to ending TPS, since Congress did not specify in the law.

Ahilan Arulanantham, a lawyer representing Syrian nationals, said the contents of a review discussion are significant, but not necessarily reviewable by a judge.

“Why would Congress permit review of the procedural aspect when everyone cares more about the substance?” Barrett asked.

Justice Samuel Alito appeared deeply skeptical of the Syrian and Haitian immigrant’s arguments. He cited concerns that federal judges across the country could strike down determinations from the executive branch based on little compelling evidence.

“If we accept your arguments it will create a hole in the judicial review bar that you can drive a convoy of trucks through,” Alito said, citing a phrase from Solicitor General John Sauer.

Solicitor General John Sauer argued that ending temporary protected status for Syrian and Haitian immigrants would project messages of confidence in the political systems of both countries. He pointed to the end of civil war in Syria in 2024 as an example.

"If we don’t terminate TPS, it will send a sense of doubt about that decision,” Sauer said.

He also argued that Haitian immigrants that come to the United States are among the most well educated in the country and would be doing a disservice to the nation’s future prosperity by allowing them to continue coming into the United States.

Geoffrey Pipoli, a lawyer arguing for the Haitian migrants, argued that the determination to end TPS for Haiti was discrimination on the basis of race.

Justices on the court did not appear to be convinced of Pipoli’s arguments, and argued that the administration has appeared to indiscriminately target TPS in all countries the U.S. still operates it in.

Alito cautioned against making determinations based on the majority race that lives in a certain country. He said it would be difficult to see how race plays a factor in the determinations when looking at certain countries.

“You have a really broad definition of who is white and who is not white,” Alito said. “I don’t like dividing the people of the world into these groups.”

However, several justices appeared sharply critical of the Trump administration’s efforts to end the temporary protected status. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the past statements from Trump about countries like Haiti show a racial bias in eliminating TPS.

“I don’t see how that one statement is not a prime example in showing a discriminatory purpose in making this decision,” Sotomayor said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also argued that the Trump administration did not proceed through the proper channels of consideration before eliminating the protected status. She said Noem should have a more substantive conversation with the State Department and other executive agencies.

“Congress has directed this secretary in this statute, in contrast with the prior regime, to make certain findings, make certain determinations,” Jackson said.

Justices on the high court will likely deliberate whether to keep TPS for Syria and Haiti intact over the next few months. The court is expected to issue a decision by July.

Demand for summer air travel is holding up well despite airlines hiking ticket prices, although possible shortages of jet fuel could throw a wrench in the key travel period, an industry trade body said Wednesday.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), which unites most of the world's leading airlines, said demand for air travel held up well in March despite the war in the Middle East.

Passenger volume rose by 2.1 percent compared to March last year, while the number of flights dropped by 1.7 percent.

Airlines were able to do this by increasing seat occupancy by 3.1 points to 83.6 percent.

The attacks on Iran launched by the United States and Israel on February 28 caused severe disruption in air traffic in the Gulf region. Passenger volumes in the Middle East plunged by 58.6 percent as airports were closed.

But as Abu Dhabi and Dubai have become major hubs in international air travel between Asia and Europe, the impact was much wider.

International passenger volumes dipped by 0.6 percent overall. Outside the Middle East they were up by eight percent.

Domestic demand increased by 6.5 percent from March last year, with seat occupancy also rising.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of global oil normally travels, has sent energy prices soaring.

Jet fuel prices have skyrocketed and airlines have been quick to raise ticket prices.

"While this has not impacted March traffic or forward bookings to date, it remains to be seen at what point high prices could start to shift passenger behavior," IATA's director Willie Walsh said.

"So far, the summer is shaping up to be a normally busy time for travel," he added.

The summer travel period is key for the commercial airline industry in terms of earning profits.

But he noted shortages of jet fuel could emerge over the next few months in regions that depended heavily on supplies from the Middle East, especially Asia and Europe.

"Everybody’s watching what's happening with jet fuel," said Walsh, urging regulators to be flexible if capacity restrictions and fuel rationing need to be introduced.

hh/rl/jj

(The Center Square) – An announcement from Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Tuesday about a manufacturing expansion in Lenawee County quickly drew a response from the Trump administration over who deserves credit for the growth.

Whitmer said the Michigan Strategic Fund Board approved support for Adrian Steel Co. to expand its operations in Adrian, a project totaling $43.4 million in capital investment and expected to bring 40 jobs to the Southeast Michigan community.

“Michigan is on the move and open for business, competing for and winning big projects in industries like steel manufacturing,” Whitmer said in a statement. “Today’s announcement will create 40 good-paying jobs and cement Michigan as the best place to build the future.”

The White House issued a response on Tuesday to the announcement, targeting Democrats and crediting President Donald Trump’s economic policies for manufacturing gains.

“Democrats like Gretchen Whitmer spent decades talking about fixing broken trade deals and creating manufacturing jobs here in America for American workers,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. “President Trump is actually delivering – and he’s delivering with the same agenda of tariffs, deregulation, and tax cuts that Whitmer and Democrats have spent months criticizing.”

The project includes a 112,000-square-feet addition to the company’s existing facility, aimed at increasing production capacity and supporting operations such as welding, assembly and shipping. The expansion is expected to take the next five years.

Local leaders praised the expansion, citing its impact on the regional economy and workforce.

“The City of Adrian recognizes Adrian Steel Company as a valued and longstanding community partner,” said Lisa Hewitt-Cruz, community development director for the City of Adrian. “For generations, Adrian has invested in our community, provided quality employment opportunities for our residents, and contributed to the economic strength and stability of our city.”

The investment marks Adrian Steel’s largest in Michigan since 1953, according to the governor’s office, and adds to ongoing efforts by state officials to grow the manufacturing sector.

The project is being supported by a $320,000 performance-based, taxpayer-funded grant through the Michigan Business Development Program, along with additional tax incentives. Republican state lawmakers have voiced support for the project and its subsidies, calling it a boost for Michigan’s manufacturing base.

“This is great news for our entire state,” said State Sen. Joseph Bellino, R-Monroe. “This project will create good-paying jobs for Michigan workers and bring a huge return on investment for state taxpayers.”

Australia's foreign minister said Wednesday that China has agreed to work together to facilitate exports of jet fuel, in an attempt to ease supply disruptions caused by the war in the Middle East.

The conflict and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's crude oil transits, have caused fuel prices to soar and left many Asia-Pacific nations facing an energy crisis.

China, a major exporter of jet fuel and diesel to Australia and other countries, has avoided the worst of the war's energy impacts thanks to its vast oil stocks, but paused exports at the start of the war to protect its domestic supplies.

"I can confirm... that the Chinese government is facilitating engagement with Australian businesses on jet fuel," Foreign Minister Penny Wong told reporters in Beijing, following talks with her Chinese counterpart Wang Yi and Chinese Vice President Han Zheng.

She added that the move was "an important step, however, it is the first step".

Earlier in the day, Wong pressed her case to Han, telling him that refineries in the Indo-Pacific region have been disproportionately affected by the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, according to an Australian foreign ministry readout.

In the talks, she called for greater reciprocity in trade, emphasizing that Australia's steady supply of raw materials and food to China should be matched by a reliable flow of gasoline, kerosene and fertilizers back to Australia.

"I made the point that the import inputs China supplies to Australia, including jet fuel, support the Australian resources sector, which in turn helps to maintain the flow of commodities that are so important in the bilateral trading relationship," Wong told the press conference.

China is set to resume exports in May with major state-owned companies applying for licenses to do so, the Financial Times reported Tuesday, citing industry sources.

Chinese authorities have not commented publicly on the matter.

During her talks with Chinese officials, Wong added: "We were able to speak frankly, as we do, about those areas of difference, including consular issues, human rights, foreign interference, and regional and international security."

burs-dhw/jm/md/des

(The Center Square) – An internet trade group filed a lawsuit against Minnesota on Wednesday morning, challenging a new law requiring websites to display warnings about social media use.

NetChoice argues in NetChoice v. Ellison that this law is a government attack on free speech and has asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to declare the requirement unlawful.

Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, spoke with The Center Square in an exclusive interview regarding the lawsuit.

“At its core, Minnesota’s law is an obvious First Amendment violation,” Taske said. “The law forces social media websites to parrot the government’s views about the alleged harms caused by social media use.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, targets a provision of House File 2 set to take effect July 1.

According to the lawsuit, the law would require a broad range of platforms to display a “state-authored warning” to every user “every single time they access the site,” regardless of age.

“Websites would have to adopt the message as their own and display it to all users—minors and adults—any time the user visits the site,” Taske told The Center Square.

Advocates for the legislation say these mental health warning labels are important to protect Minnesotans.

“I think the evidence is very clear that social media use is linked with depression, anxiety, loneliness, self harm, suicidal ideation, eating disorders, all sorts of terrible mental health conditions,” said Rep. Zack Stephenson, DFL-Coon Rapids and one of the sponsors of the bill, last July.

But NetChoice argues that, despite lawmakers citing mental health concerns, the U.S. Constitution limits how the state can respond to those concerns.

“The Act compels regulated websites and applications to speak the State’s message,” the lawsuit states, adding that it bars platforms from including “extraneous information” that could detract from the warning’s visibility.

Taske said that creates two major constitutional problems.

“First, it forces websites to carry the government’s message,” he said. “Second, websites have no clear guidance about what specific message—or how many of Minnesota’s many options—they must display.”

NetChoice’s lawsuit follows a similar challenge the group brought in Colorado, where, as previously reported by The Center Square, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction blocking a law requiring social media warnings for minors.

Taske explained that Minnesota’s law is even broader and more restrictive than that Colorado law.

“Colorado’s law applied to minors. Minnesota’s applies to everyone,” he said. “If Colorado’s narrower law was unconstitutional, Minnesota’s certainly is.”

He also argued the law selectively targets certain platforms.

“Minnesota carved out TV networks and gaming platforms, yet targets places like YouTube and X because that is where free speech thrives today,” Taske said. “This isn’t about protecting Minnesotans; it’s about silencing speech the government doesn't like.”

Supporters of warning label laws argue they are a necessary public health measure, particularly for young users.

Kids Code Coalition argues social media warning labels are “a critical step toward protecting the health and safety of young people online,” comparing them to labels on tobacco and alcohol that inform consumers of potential risks.

The group pointed to a 2023 advisory from U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy warning that social media poses a “profound risk of harm” to the mental health of children and adolescents, and his subsequent call for Congress to require warning labels on platforms.

Taske, however, rejected the comparison to traditional product warnings – often seen on tobacco or alcohol products.

“States cannot do by ‘warning label’ what they can’t do by outright ban,” he said. “If the government has a view, it must speak for itself.”

He said the stakes go beyond social media.

“The First Amendment isn’t just for the speech that everyone agrees with,” Taske said. “It’s for the unpopular speaker, publisher, and website. Otherwise, the government could label anything it dislikes as ‘harmful’ and force you to adopt its talking point.”

NetChoice is asking the court to block the law before it takes effect in July.

“For us, the ideal outcome is both to stop the law from taking effect and to develop strong case law reinforcing the core First Amendment principle that the government cannot coerce private entities into serving as its preferred mouthpieces,” Taske said. “Social media may be a popular target for regulation, but the very fact that their speech is currently disfavored makes the First Amendment issues even more important.”

(The Center Square) – Federal courts overstepped when they required the state to draw a second majority-Black congressional district, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a high-stakes Louisiana redistricting dispute.

State Attorney General Liz Murrill called the ruling a “seismic decision,” saying it reaffirms equal protection principles and ends years of what she described as federal overreach.

“The Supreme Court has finally vindicated our original position,” Murrill said in a statement, adding that the case cost the state years of litigation and millions of dollars.

In Louisiana v. Callais, the justices rendered a 6-3 decision stating the lower courts went too far in directing Louisiana to rely on race in crafting its congressional map, emphasizing the Constitution limits when race can be used in redistricting.

The decision marks a significant clarification of how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 can be applied. Writing for the majority, the court said race-based line drawing is permissible only in narrow circumstances, particularly where there is clear evidence of intentional discrimination that must be remedied.

After the ruling, first-term Republican Secretary of State Nancy Landry referred to the case as "active litigation."

"My lawyers are currently analyzing the opinion," she wrote on social media. "We are limited in what we can say at this time as this continues to be active litigation with the case remanded for proceeding back to the Western District."

Murrill, a Republican also in her first term, said the lengthy proceedings have been a nightmare "of federal courts coercing the state to draw a racially discriminatory map."

"That was always unconstitutional," she said, "and this is a seismic decision reaffirming equal protection under our nation’s laws.

“I vigorously defended our first map and said then that the only way to draw a second majority-minority district was to expressly take race into account. We raised our objections at that time to racial gerrymandering, but the District Court and the 5th Circuit directed us to draw the map anyway."

The dispute began after Louisiana adopted a congressional map with one majority-Black district following the 2020 census. Civil rights groups challenged the plan, saying it diluted Black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

A federal District Court, later backed by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ordered the state to draw a second majority-Black district. State officials complied continuing to appeal, saying creation of a second such district would require unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court agreed that courts must apply strict scrutiny when race predominates in redistricting and cautioned against compelling states to adopt maps that prioritize race without sufficient justification. 

Murrill said, "It is gratifying that the Supreme Court has finally vindicated our original position and, in doing so, clarified that only under very narrow circumstances – where there is proof of intentional discrimination – may race be used as a remedy under Section 2. It is frustrating that this has taken five years, millions of dollars, and many lost hours to get here.

"I will continue to work with the governor and the Legislature to provide guidance as we move forward to adopt a constitutionally compliant map.”

The United States has still not paid off its membership fee arrears at the World Health Organization, the WHO chief said Wednesday, with Washington's intention to leave conditional on paying up.

The UN health agency's director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said he hoped the United States would come up with the money they owe -- a self-imposed condition for quitting the organisation.

US President Donald Trump, on his first day back in office in January 2025, handed the WHO his country's one-year withdrawal notice.

"In terms of the arrears from the US, the US withdrawal is conditioned with two things," Tedros told a press conference with the UN correspondents' association ACANU.

"One is notification one year in advance, which is actually met. And the second is paying the arrears, so we hope they will do that but we haven't received anything yet."

The United States was the biggest contributor to the WHO budget.

Tedros said there were "no signals" indicating that Washington would come up with the cash.

But he added: "To be honest, it's not about the money.

"The issue is health security needs universality and the US, by withdrawing, makes itself unsafe and makes the rest of the world unsafe. So it's lose-lose. 

"So our focus is not on the money. The focus is on helping the US to understand and reconsider.

"Where there is a vacuum, the virus wins. It's as simple as that.

"It's global cooperation and solidarity which is the best response."

Though the US flag no longer flies outside the WHO headquarters in Geneva, the WHO's decision-making body -- the annual assembly of member states -- will decide upon the US withdrawal when it meets from May 18-23.

The WHO constitution does not include a withdrawal clause.

But the United States reserved the right to withdraw when it joined the WHO in 1948 -- on condition of giving one year's notice and meeting its financial obligations in full for that fiscal year.

The notice period has now expired but Washington has still not paid its 2024 or 2025 dues, owing around $260 million.

The United States was traditionally the biggest donor to the WHO.

In January, as the notice expired, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attacked the WHO, claiming it had "tarnished and trashed everything that America has done for it", with "the insults to America" continuing to the end.

"The reverse is true," the WHO responded.

Despite the parting shot from Kennedy, the US health secretary still speaks with Tedros on a regular basis.

"We keep in touch every now and then," the WHO chief told reporters.

rjm/ag/phz