Senate confirms Warsh on narrow partisan lines

(The Center Square) – Teacher’s guide learning modules and self-assessment tools for students are part of the third annual Student Guide to Artificial Intelligence, a production of Elon University, the American Association of Colleges and Universities, and The Princeton Review.

“Capacities such as critical inquiry, ethical reasoning, creativity and communication are more important than ever because they enable students to engage AI thoughtfully, question its outputs and apply knowledge with judgment and purpose,” said President Lynn Pasquerella of the AAC&U.

Authors say, “The guide draws on 10 voices across centuries and cultures – from Aristotle, Cicero and Descartes to Mencius and Ptahhotep – whose enduring insights into human judgment, creativity, ethics and wisdom take on new urgency as AI reshapes how we learn and work.”

Artificial intelligence is a burgeoning influence on the world. In American, second-term Republican President Donald Trump has reversed a number of Biden era policies inclusive of deregulation, accelerating private-sector innovation and promotion of “ideologically neutral” artificial intelligence. He’s concerned with competition from China.

In April, the Elon University Imagining the Digital Future Center and Elon University Poll found 82% believing artificial intelligence will play “a significantly larger role in shaping people’s lives and key societal functions in the next 10 years or less.” The resilience infrastructure is to “counterbalance the human and systemic challenges posed by widespread AI adoption.”

The sampling Dec. 26 to Feb. 12 invited more than 4,000 experts to weigh in.

“The central risk described by these experts is not a single catastrophic AI event,” said Janna Anderson, professor of communications and senior researcher for the center. “They said accelerated AI use will lead to a cumulative reallocation of human agency until people and institutions find it harder to question, contest or even notice what has changed. That drift can look like ‘progress’ in the short term, but it has a price – the gradual weakening of human judgment, accountability, shared truth and the social fabric that makes self-government possible.”

Rob Franek, editor in chief at The Princeton Review, said students are “both excited by AI and uncertain about how to use it well.”

“What they’re really looking for is guidance,” he said. “This field guide meets that moment by translating big ideas – like critical thinking, creativity and ethical decision-making – into practical habits students can use every day.”

More than 4,000 colleges, universities, schools and organizations access Student Guide to Artificial Intelligence publications. More than 87,000 users in 170 countries have been provided information through the guide’s website.

The American Association of Colleges and Universities, headquartered in Washington, is an international organization billing itself as “a global membership organization dedicated to advancing the democratic purposes of higher education by promoting equity, innovation, and excellence in liberal education.”

The Princeton Review, headquartered in New York City, is not affiliated with Princeton University. The private organization provides test preparation, tutoring and college admission services.

(The Center Square) – Responses are due by 5 p.m. Thursday in Virginia’s emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court over the commonwealth’s congressional redistricting dispute, as outside groups and legislative officials continue weighing in ahead of any action from the court.

Chief Justice John Roberts earlier this week ordered responses to the emergency stay request filed by Virginia House Democrats and state officials after the Virginia Supreme Court voided the Commonwealth’s April redistricting referendum.

The May 8 ruling found lawmakers missed a constitutional deadline because early voting for the November 2025 House of Delegates elections had already begun when the General Assembly approved the amendment on Oct. 31.

Three outside groups have now filed amicus briefs in the case.

The NAACP Virginia State Conference and Advancement Project filed in support of the stay request, saying the Virginia Supreme Court adopted an incorrect interpretation of election law.

The NAACP brief argues the ruling effectively discarded more than 3.1 million ballots cast during the referendum.

A separate filing from West Virginia Attorney General John B. McCuskey opposed the stay request, saying the dispute centers on Virginia constitutional law and does not present a federal question for the U.S. Supreme Court to review.

The West Virginia filing also said changing course this close to the 2026 election cycle could create confusion for voters and election officials ahead of 2026.

“A stay would only further compound the confusion, inviting a whiplash situation in which elections are held under new maps for just one election, only to revert to the old maps for the next, all at the behest of this court,” the filing states.

The American Center for Law and Justice also opposed the stay and said the amendment process violated additional state constitutional requirements involving timing and ballot language.

The clerks of the Virginia House of Delegates and Virginia Senate also filed a response Thursday supporting the emergency application, saying legislative immunity issues tied to the case were not addressed in the Virginia Supreme Court’s May 8 ruling.

Roberts has not indicated when the court may act after responses are filed. The court could rule quickly, request additional briefing or take no immediate action.

(The Center Square) – After two years of hearings, whistleblower testimony and document reviews, Minnesota House Republicans say they’ve uncovered what they describe as an “unprecedented” pattern of fraud in Minnesota.

The sweeping 84-page oversight report, adopted Wednesday by the Republican-led Minnesota House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee, concludes a two-year investigation into fraud throughout Minnesota’s taxpayer-funded welfare programs.

“The report outlines the ‘anatomy of fraud’ and the failure of the [Gov. Tim] Walz administration to take action,” said Rep. Kristin Robbins, R-Maple Grove, who chaired the now-adjourned committee.

Robbins explained the report is intended to serve as both a record of findings and a warning about how fraud can spread when government fails in oversight.

“We, through the whistleblowers, really did uncover how there had been a cover up,” Robbins told The Center Square in an exclusive interview following the vote. “They weren’t just sort of unaware of the fraud. They were aware of it and actively allowing it to continue or suppressing people who are trying to call it out.”

The report asserts that by 2019, senior officials in the Walz administration were aware of significant fraud risks in child care assistance programs but failed to act, essentially creating a "culture of fraud."

“The Walz Administration ignored and consciously downplayed shocking levels of fraud across more than a dozen Medicaid waiver programs,” the report states. “Despite having sufficient authority to take action to prevent fraud and the authority to place new controls when necessary, the Walz Administration allowed the fraud explode to unprecedented levels.”

It further claims that whistleblowers who raised concerns were ignored or retaliated against and that oversight warnings from the Office of the Legislative Auditor were not adequately implemented.

“When diligent and courageous government employees reported fraud and tried to get action, the Walz Administration ignored, demoted, and retaliated against whistleblowers,” the report states, adding that those who did speak out were often accused of “being racists.”

“This complicit acceptance of fraud by the Democrat leaders allowed a culture of fraud to take root in Minnesota,” it says.

The committee was created in January 2025 as part of a House power-sharing agreement after the chamber was tied. It was the first oversight committee of its kind in Minnesota legislative history and was tasked with holding hearings on fraud prevention and agency oversight.

“The scope of the fraud is staggering,” Robbins said during the committee’s final hearing. “We have made enormous progress in exposing fraud, strengthening internal controls and bringing a culture of accountability to state government, but there is more work to do.”

A central theme of the report is what Republicans call the “anatomy of fraud,” describing a repeatable playbook used by criminals across multiple programs.

The report says fraud typically begins when providers enter programs with “significant federal money, no enrollment caps, and low barriers to entry,” then escalate billing through falsified attendance records, duplicate claims and shell-company arrangements.

“We’ve seen the same pattern over and over and over,” Robbins said. “We have to clamp down on it right away.”

Robbins explained the committee’s hearings revealed that fraud was not isolated to one program or agency but instead spanned multiple systems over many years.

“All of these failures have created opportunities for serial fraudsters to steal billions from Minnesota taxpayers across multiple programs for years,” the report states.

The report also alleges that state agencies relied too heavily on self-attestation rather than documentation and verification, creating what it calls “predictable” vulnerabilities.

“When a program requires little more than an online form to become a provider, with no documentation, pre-approval site visits, capital investment, or infrastructure, fraud flourishes,” the report states.

Much of the committee’s recommendations focus on tightening eligibility standards, increasing oversight authority and modernizing fraud detection tools.

One of the report’s central proposals is the creation of an independent Office of Inspector General within the executive branch with investigative authority to pursue fraud across agencies. Other recommendations include extending the statute of limitations for public program fraud to 10 years and creating criminal penalties for falsifying information submitted to the Office of the Legislative Auditor or state oversight bodies.

The report also calls for mandatory electronic verification systems for attendance-based programs such as child care, autism services, sober homes and non-emergency medical transportation, arguing that paper or attestation-based systems are too easily manipulated.

“Programs billed based on attestation of attendance are magnets for fraudsters,” the report states. “We’ve learned that the ‘anatomy of fraud’ contains many elements, but it starts with the reality that fraud is a crime of opportunity. While criminals are intent on scamming taxpayers, they are only able to do so if the conditions are right.”

The committee also recommends requiring unannounced site visits before providers can enroll in public programs, along with full disclosure of ownership structures and financial capacity reviews.

Another proposal would create automatic “stop-payment” triggers if program spending grows more than 50% year-over-year.

“This trigger, which would immediately stop payment when spending grows by more than 50% of the previous year, would incentivize the oversight taxpayers deserve and expect,” the report says.

Additional recommendations include expanded use of artificial intelligence to detect irregular billing patterns, mandatory reporting from agencies on oversight gaps, and stronger whistleblower tracking systems.

“State agencies should proactively tell legislators where they lack oversight of programs or gaps in statute,” the report states.

Democrat lawmakers on the committee strongly objected to both the report’s conclusions and the process used to adopt it—as well as the existence of the committee itself.

Rep. Dave Pinto, DFL-St. Paul, criticized the timing of the report’s release and said Democrats were not meaningfully involved in drafting it.

“This document came together without any input, any review, anything from three of the eight members of the committee,” Pinto said.

Rep. Emma Greenman, DFL-Minneapolis, said the committee had strayed from its stated purpose.

“This committee is called the Fraud Prevention and Government Oversight Committee, not the make the case and picture what you think the Democratic Party is,” Greenman said.

Republicans, however, defended the report as a necessary record of findings from the committee’s two-year investigation.

Robbins said the goal of the report was to preserve the work of the committee, regardless of which party is in power in Minnesota in the years ahead.

“If this is the only session in the history of the Minnesota Legislature where we actually had the guts to have an oversight committee,” she said, “I want there to be a record of our work.”

BOZEMAN, Mont. - Bozeman Municipal Court and the nonprofit HRDC are partnering for the second Food for Fines event, in which defendants can trade nonperishable food items in exchange for credit toward their fines. The event is scheduled for May 29 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Bozeman Public Safety Center. 

Each donated nonperishable item is equivalent to $10 of credit, up to $200 (or 20 items). 

“Due to income levels, not everyone experiences a $200 penalty the same way,” Judge Karolina Tierney said in a press release. “Those who are low-income are going to feel that penalty much more significantly. That’s why we’re hosting this event. Defendants still need to be accountable for crimes they have committed, but by providing food items in lieu of cash, they can take responsibility, complete their sentence, and help a worthy cause at the same time.”

Parking tickets are ineligible for credit. Defendants are also ineligible, according to a press release, if they are only paying restitution, have an active warrant, are in collections for fines or restitution, have a deferred prosecution agreement or are completing community service in lieu of fines. 

“Everyone deserves the opportunity to give back in meaningful ways," President and CEO of HRDC Heather Grenier said. "Every food item donated during Food for Fines will help us stock the shelves of our local food banks and make a real difference for our neighbors struggling to pay rent and still afford groceries."

For more information about the program or event, visit the City of Bozeman website. 

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision on Thursday, ruled that a lower court can determine an arbitration award in an employment discrimination case. 

The case, Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, focuses on Adrian Jules, an employee of a hotel operated by Balazs. The Cheateau Marmont Hotel in Los Angeles ended Jules' employment in March 2020, citing staffing issues due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Jules filed a lawsuit in federal court against Balazs alleging employment discrimination. 

The case was sent to arbitration, where an impartial third-party reviewed the dispute instead of going to court. The federal court did not dismiss the case, but instead waited on a decision pending the arbitration agreement. 

The arbiter ruled against Jules and awarded Balasz $34,500 in sanctions. The federal court affirmed the award and dismissed further claims against Jules. 

However, Jules argued that the federal court could not affirm the award. He said the case did not belong in federal court even though the issues he brought were considered federal jurisdiction. 

Justices on the court unanimously disagreed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in the court's majority opinion, said Jules' arguments did not hold up.

"Federal courts have the power to incorporate private settlements into orders of the court when resolving claims that are the subject of those settlements," Sotomayor wrote. 

Sotomayor argued that the Federal Arbitration Act, which authorizes a federal court to assist in affirming and arbitration agreement, allowed the court to rule on the decision. 

"Because those claims were sufficient to establish the District Court’s jurisdiction in this case, they also established the District Court’s authority to resolve the motions to confirm or vacate the arbitral award resolving those claims," Sotomayor wrote. 

(The Center Square) - The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision Thursday, agreed that states can protect individuals injured in trucking accidents. 

The case, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport, focused on Shawn Montgomery, who sustained severe and permanent injuries after his tractor trailer was struck by a truck driven under Caribe Transport's authority in Illinois.

Montgomery said C.H. Robinson, the company who hired Caribe Transport, was responsible for negligent hiring. C.H. Robinson said Montogomery's claim was preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. 

The Federal Aviation Adminsitration Authorization Act allows transportation agencies to preempt state laws in relation to the pricing, routes and services of the trucking industry. Justices on the high court said the act does not preempt negligent hiring claims. 

"States retain authority to regulate safety 'with respect to motor vehicles' under the Act," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote. 

Barrett said the FAAAA has an important exception aimed at protecting individuals from safety risks that allows it to be prosecuted in the injury case. 

"C.H. Robinson knew (or should have known) that choosing Caribe Transport to move goods was reasonably likely to cause an accident," Barrett wrote. "Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption."

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito wrote concurring opinions with Barrett. Kavanaugh said C.H. Robinson is as equally liable for a lawsuit as Caribe Transport, the broker agency, due to safety concerns in hiring.

"It is hard to read the statute as written and conclude that Congress subtly sliced and diced state tort law so that trucking companies would be subject to state tort suits for accidents, but brokers would operate free of any such tort liability," Kavanaugh wrote. 

With the justices settling a question over preemption, the case will move forward in the lower courts for further consideration and damages.

(The Center Square) - Washington Attorney General's Office officials described the state Supreme Court as “favorable a venue as we’re likely to get” to thwart a referendum on a new millionaire's tax, according to emails between a former court clerk who works for the AGO and other staff.

Yet, Deputy Solicitor General Karl Smith, who clerked for the court from 2009 through 2012 according to his Linkedin profile, hypothesized that justices might also "punt" to the voters about whether to uphold the tax so they could avoid having to make the decision themselves, the emails show.

“Giving the People a chance to reject it by referendum might be an attractive option to justices who want to punt on the constitutional question,” Smith wrote to Solicitor General Noah Purcell in an April 7 draft response to Let’s Go Washington’s lawsuit filed against the Secretary of State’s Office after it rejected a referendum on the millionaire’s tax.

The Secretary of State's Office emailed Wednesday afternoon to say they mistakenly released the records.

The "Office of the Secretary of State (OSOS) provided you with records in response to your Public Records Request No. 26-447," the message said. "OSOS has since determined that certain attorney-client privileged documents were inadvertently included in the records provided." The email requested that The Center Square delete and not report on the released records. But the news wire declined to do that because the records were newsworthy and expose behind the scenes actions about a significant issue that is of public interest to taxpayers. 

One of the arguments contained in the draft document was that the court should reject hearing the case because “petitioners have a plain, speed, and adequate remedies at law.”

Download PDF

Smith wrote in the draft document to Purcell that “from your email, I understood you were disinclined to make this argument, noting the Supreme Court is as favorable a venue as we’re likely to get.”

The state Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Let’s Go Washington.

Attorney Joel Ard, who represented Let's Go Washington in the case before the Supreme Court, said the court was wrong but it was not appropriate for the Attorney General's staff to have these discussions.

"We’re still in the position where we think they (state Supreme Court) got it wrong," he told The Center Square after the news wire described the documents it obtained. "It’s interesting to see the Attorney General politicizing the court.”

He added that “this isn’t the first case I’ve lost before the state Supreme Court, and of course I think they got all those wrong.”

The Citizen Action Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit against the millionaire’s tax, whose legal team includes former State Attorney General Rob McKenna and former State Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge.

CADF Executive Director Jackson Maynard said the emails show the importance of the coming election to fill open Supreme Court seats.

"It’s another peak behind the curtain," Maynard told The Center Square after being read the emails. "The fact that they are viewing the current court as a ‘favorable venue’ for them I think is telling and highlights the fact that….the majority of the court is on the ballot is really going to be important.

"The line about the referendum and whether the court might be willing to essentially use a referendum as a way to avoid decision the constitutionality of the case, just shows that unfortunately this is more of a political question rather than an issue of ensuring that the right of the people to vote on legislation is upheld,” he added. 

The Center Square requested an interview with the AGO to discuss the emails. Instead, AGO Deputy Communications Director Mike Faulk wrote in an email that the discussion was because of the court's extensive rules on referendums.

This "was part of a preliminary discussion about legal strategy in a case that is now over," Faulk wrote. "The state Supreme Court deals with far more questions about mandamus and referendum powers than any other court in the state. They are far more familiar with the governing legal principles, which is why our attorneys described it as a favorable venue."

The Center Square recently reported that the AGO staff and the millionaire’s tax prime sponsor Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, worked closely to draft the bill so that it would “force” the state Supreme Court to reconsider almost a century’s worth of legal rulings that income is property as defined in the state Constitution.

In emails obtained by The Center Square, Pedersen wrote that a key goal of the tax was to get the Supreme Court to overturn the 1933 Culliton decision, which ruled that progressive income taxes are illegal because they violate the state Constitution’s uniformity clause for property taxes based on their class. A 1930 voters pamphlet advocating for the 14th Amendment that added a definition of property into the Constitution states that the purpose for doing so was to make it possible to tax income from stocks and bonds at a separate rate than other types of property, such as land. 

Other decisions since then have reaffirmed Culliton.

The rulings include:

• Jensen v. Henneford (1936)
• Power, Inc. v. Huntley, (1951), in which the court declared “it is no longer subject to question in this court that income is property.”
• Kunath v. City of Seattle (2019)

The original draft of the millionaire's tax did not include an emergency or necessity clause, which was added after Purcell recommended it to prevent a referendum. Purcell's remarks via email were used by Let's Go Washington as further evidence in their lawsuit that the bill was not necessary to enact the budget.

The Center Square reached out to the state Supreme Court’s Senior Communications Officer Lorrie Thompson by email and phone requesting an interview to discuss Smith and Purcell’s remarks, but did not receive a response.

SHREVEPORT, La. -- The LSUS Pilots’ baseball season came to an end Wednesday after a 7-4 loss to Mid-America Christian University, but not before the team showed resilience in front of its home crowd at Pilot Field in Shreveport.

Earlier in the day, the Pilots energized fans with an 11-inning 6-5 victory over Oklahoma Wesleyan, keeping their postseason hopes alive and giving supporters one more memorable moment during the bracket tournament.

For many fans, watching LSUS compete carried extra meaning after last season’s historic undefeated run to the NAIA championship. While this year proved to be more challenging on the field, supporters said they remain proud of the program and optimistic about its future.

“It gives the city something to be proud of, especially after last year,” fan Christopher Kouba said.

Kouba’s father said the team faced a tougher road this season after losing several key players, but credited the Pilots for continuing to battle throughout the year.

Fan and player parent Sean Sullivan said the extra-inning win earlier in the day gave supporters hope the team could continue its postseason run.

“There’s still a path,” Sullivan said. “It’s a tough path, but there’s always a path. So we’re hoping to keep watching baseball. Our favorite thing to do.”

Although the Pilots later fell in their second game of the day, fans and players alike praised the team’s determination throughout the season.

“Gritty group,” injured LSUS pitcher Luke Shelton said. “We got a lot of talent. We just got to put some pieces together. Close game right here and there. We just got to keep fighting and pull through.”

Now, the Pilots turn their attention to the offseason as they regroup and prepare for next year. Meanwhile, fans will be waiting for the return of baseball and another chance to pack the bleachers at Pilot Field.

(The Center Square) - Denise Powell won the Democratic nomination in Nebraska's second congressional district, according to projections from multiple media outlets. 

Powell edged out state Sen. John Cavanaugh in the closely watched race. Democrats view Nebraska's second congressional district as key to flipping control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November. 

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., announced he would not run for reelection. In his place, Brinker Harding, an Omaha City Council member, secured the uncontested Republican nomination. 

"I'm so proud of this history-making campaign," Powell said. "Proud to have been the first Latina to ever file to run for federal office in the history of our state."

Harding has advocated for lowering taxes and reducing the national debt. 

“I will fight to cut your taxes, bring down gas and grocery prices, lower interest rates, create good-paying jobs and ensure America is the global leader in cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence,” Harding wrote. 

Powell spent her campaign highlighting the risk electing Cavanaugh would have posed. She said Cavanaugh's election to the seat could hurt Democratic makeup in the state Senate since Republican Gov. Jim Pillen would select his replacement. 

The Healthcare for Action political action committee endorsed Powell for the Democratic nomination. Anahita Dua, founder of Healthcare for Action, said Powell would defend abortion rights, expand healthcare options and fight insurance companies.

"Denise is a tireless champion for public health and a fearless advocate for working families," Dua said. "Healthcare will be central to Democrats' path to retaking the House in 2026 and Healthcare for Action remains committed to supporting strong public health advocates like Denise Powell in communities across the country."

The Cook Political Report ranks Nebraska's second congressional district as leaning in favor of Democrats. It highlights the district as a prime opportunity for Democrats to flip in 2026.

Voters in the Cornhusker State will return to the polls in November as Powell and Harding face off in the key district.