The Supreme Court on Thursday announced it would fast-track its review of a challenge by several death row inmates to the Trump administration’s revised approach to federal executions.

The four inmates, most of whom are scheduled to be killed next month, argue that a lethal injection protocol that the Department of Justice (DOJ) adopted last year violates federal law.

The justices on Thursday ordered the DOJ to respond to the inmates’ petition for appeal by the following day.

ADVERTISEMENT

A federal execution has not been carried out since 2003, due in part to a widespread shortage during the Obama administration of lethal injection drugs in the so-called three-drug cocktail.

Attorney General William BarrBill BarrSupreme Court fast-tracks death row challenge to DOJ execution method Trump wants to find and prosecute whoever told media about bunker visit: NYT Bolton claims House should have investigated other impeachable offenses by Trump MORE announced last July that federal capital punishment would resume with the use of a single drug, pentobarbital sodium.

At issue is whether the Trump administration’s drug protocol violates the Federal Death Penalty Act, which says that the state where a capital crime was committed should determine the method of execution.

In April, the D.C. Circuit panel ruled 2-1 in favor of a Trump administration plan to resume federal death sentences under a new lethal injection protocol, prompting the inmates’ appeal to the Supreme Court.

On Monday, Barr scheduled the executions to take place in July and August.

A federal judge appeared skeptical on Friday about the Trump administration’s effort to block former national security adviser John BoltonJohn BoltonJournalist Aaron Maté says Democrats are responsible for giving John Bolton publicity Federal judge appears skeptical of blocking Bolton book release McEnany: Trump likes to hire people with ‘countervailing viewpoints’ MORE from releasing his new tell-all memoir next week.

Judge Royce C. Lamberth said at a hearing that there seems to be little he could do to stop the book titled “The Room Where it Happened: A White House Memoir” from being made widely available at this point, with stores across the country set to put it on sale Tuesday.

“The horse, as we used to say in Texas, seems to be out of the barn,” Lamberth said. “It certainly looks difficult to me about what I can do about those books all over the country.”

ADVERTISEMENT

But the judge, who was appointed to the federal district court in D.C. by former President Reagan, also suggested that Bolton may have violated his nondisclosure agreements with the government by moving forward with the book’s publication before receiving written approval from the National Security Council (NSC).

“I don’t really understand why he decided to take that risk,” Lamberth said, suggesting that Bolton should have sued the government when he realized written approval would not be forthcoming.

The Trump administration is asking for a temporary restraining order halting the book’s publication before its planned release as the lawsuit plays out. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is accusing Bolton of violating nondisclosure agreements he signed when he joined the White House that prohibit him from disclosing any classified or sensitive information.

David Morrell, an attorney for the Justice Department, said that even at this late stage the government is still pursuing a ruling that condemns the book’s publication.

“Your Honor, there is a massive interest that the government has here in ensuring that authors who become disgruntled, don’t like the process, aren’t able to just bail out” and publish their material, Morrell said.

Bolton’s lawyers argue that the White House is trying to delay the book’s publication until after the election, given its deeply negative portrait of President TrumpDonald John TrumpProtesters tear down, burn statue of Confederate general in DC US attorney in NYC who spearheaded probes of Trump allies refuses to leave as DOJ pushes ouster Trump to host 4th of July event despite pleas from lawmakers to cancel MORE and his administration, as reported by multiple media outlets that received advance copies, including The Hill.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The speech has been spoken, it can’t now be unspoken, Your Honor,” said Charles Cooper, an attorney for the former national security adviser. “So the most distressing piece of this is that what the purpose of this proceeding really is is not truly judicial, it’s theater, it’s to use your courtroom as a stage.”

Late last year, Bolton submitted a draft of his book to the NSC for a standard prepublication review to determine if it contained any classified information. After months of editing the manuscript to comply with NSC’s recommendations, Bolton was told in late April that the book no longer contained classified material and that he should await a letter informing him that the review had officially been completed, according to court documents.

That letter never came, and Bolton was informed that the NSC was conducting a second review of the book by a more senior official, Michael Ellis, the White House’s senior director of intelligence.

Ellis said he identified more passages in the book containing classified information, further delaying the prepublication approval.

On June 16, Ellis sent Bolton a draft of his book with major redactions, removing passages detailing internal White House conversations and “portraying President Trump in an unflattering light,” Bolton’s lawyers told the court. The DOJ sued Bolton that day.

Lamberth appeared concerned about the fact that the government seemed to backtrack on its assurance that the manuscript no longer contained classified material.

“Why weren’t the objected portions identified earlier?” he asked the DOJ’s attorney.

Morrell responded that Ellis, as a more senior government official, was privy to more information and thus better equipped to identify sensitive information in the draft.

Lamberth also asked whether any of the information that Ellis objected to was classified after Bolton’s book was tentatively cleared in April. Morrell admitted that Ellis classified at least one passage during his review.

The DOJ’s effort to obtain a preliminary injunction faces significant legal challenges, particularly First Amendment limitations on the government’s ability to halt the publication of information. Complicating the administration’s argument is the fact that advanced copies have already been widely distributed.

Earlier this week, a reporter brandished a copy of the book while asking questions of the White House press secretary during a press conference.

“The Room Where it Happened” is highly critical of Trump’s handling of foreign policy, particularly his appreciation of China and its president, Xi Jinping.

ADVERTISEMENT

Still, if Bolton is able to move forward with the book’s planned release, the DOJ is asking the court to seize any profits from its publication, citing a Supreme Court precedent from 1980 forfeiting the royalties a former CIA officer made on a book about his time in Vietnam that circumvented prepublication review.

Lamberth may be more receptive to that argument, as he posed tough questions to Bolton’s attorney about the decision to proceed with the book’s publication without express authorization.

The judge is expected to decide on whether to issue a restraining order in the next few days.

—Updated at 4 p.m.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has halted its clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine, saying that while there are no ill side effects, the anti-malaria drug provides no benefit to COVID-19 patients.

“A data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) met late Friday and determined that while there was no harm, the study drug was very unlikely to be beneficial to hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” the NIH said in a statement.

It added, “The data from this study indicate that this drug provided no additional benefit compared to placebo control for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Hydroxychloroquine, which has long been used to combat malaria, was heralded by many, including President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump mocked for low attendance at rally Trump suggests legislation that would jail people who burn the flag for a year Trump makes defiant return to campaign stage amid controversies MORE, as a possible treatment for the coronavirus until a working vaccine becomes available.

The trial started in Nashville, Tenn., at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in April, the NIH noted. More than 470 people were part of the study at its end.

The NIH explained why hydroxychloroquine was first examined as a potential treatment for COVID-19.

“Hydroxychloroquine is used to treat malaria and rheumatoid conditions such as arthritis,” the NIH said. “In various studies, the drug had demonstrated antiviral activity, an ability to modify the activity of the immune system, and it has an established safety profile at appropriate doses, leading to the hypothesis that it may have also been useful in the treatment of COVID-19.”

The NIH said COVID-19 more often than not presents as “an acute respiratory infection,” which can lead to severe damage to the body’s other organs, including the blood.

Nearly 8.7 million people around the world have tested positive for the virus, with more than 2 million cases coming from the U.S. alone. In the U.S., nearly 120,000 people have died from the virus.

The race to create a viable vaccine is well underway, but health experts have warned that a vaccine might not be ready until next summer.

Many heralded hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment option for COVID-19, including Trump, before the NIH began its trial.

Twitter disabled the video on a tweet from President TrumpDonald John TrumpProtesters tear down, burn statue of Confederate general in DC US attorney in NYC who spearheaded probes of Trump allies refuses to leave as DOJ pushes ouster Trump to host 4th of July event despite pleas from lawmakers to cancel MORE that included a manipulated CNN chyron. 

“This media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner,” reads a message now in place of the video.

Twitter had initially flagged the tweet as containing manipulated media before also disabling the video.

ADVERTISEMENT

The original video included an edited CNN chyron reading “terrified todler[sic] runs from racist baby.”

“Per our copyright policy, we respond to valid copyright complaints sent to us by a copyright owner or their authorized representatives,” a Twitter spokesperson said in a statement The Hill.

The initial video, which went viral before being included on the tweet, shows two children running towards each other and embracing. The tweet edited the video to include menacing background music and the manipulated CNN headline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Twitter confirmed that it took action over the tweet after a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice from a rights holder.

In a statement directly addressing Trump, a CNN spokesperson noted that the network covered the footage of the two New York children when it first went viral in 2019 under the headline “These two toddlers are showing us what real-life besties look like.”

“CNN did cover this story — exactly as it happened. Just as we reported your positions on race [and poll numbers],” the network said in a statement. “We’ll continue working with facts rather than tweeting fake videos that exploit innocent children. We invite you to do the same. Be better.” 

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and CNN chief White House correspondent Jim AcostaJames (Jim) AcostaTwitter disables video in Trump tweet featuring fake CNN chyron Acosta, McEnany spar over Trump’s manipulated CNN tweet Appeals court blocks White House from suspending reporter MORE sparred over the video during a press conference Friday, with McEnany saying that the president was “making a point” about the network, claiming it has “regularly taken him out of context.”

The tweet is the third from Trump that has been flagged by Twitter. The first tweet was appended with a correction over Trump’s claims on mail-in voting. The second, a tweet about unrest after the death of George Floyd that included the phrase “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” was flagged as promoting violence. 

Trump has pushed back on the actions from Twitter, saying it and other social media companies should lose their legal protections from lawsuits over what third-party users post on their platforms.

Apple is closing 11 stores across the United States in areas where coronavirus cases are beginning to spike again.

The company announced Friday that it will shutter the stores in Florida, Arizona, North Carolina and South Carolina that had recently re-opened.

“Due to current COVID-19 conditions in some of the communities we serve, we are temporarily closing stores in these areas,” the company said in a statement. “We take this step with an abundance of caution as we closely monitor the situation and we look forward to having our teams and customers back as soon as possible.”

ADVERTISEMENT

All four of the states where Apple is closing its stores have seen spikes in cases in recent days.

Apple had begun re-opening stores in the U.S. in May with health precautions including temperature checks and a mask requirement.

“The response to COVID‑19 is still ongoing, and we recognize that the road back will have its twists and turns,” Apple retail head Dierdre O’Brien said at the time, acknowledging stores may have to be closed again if cases rose.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpOklahoma venue management asks Trump campaign for health plan ahead of rally Pompeo slams Bolton account as spreading ‘lies,’ ‘fully-spun half-truths’ and ‘falsehoods’ Twitter flags Trump tweet featuring fake CNN chyron as ‘manipulated media’ MORE‘s pick to lead the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) on Wednesday night ousted multiple officials overseeing news outlets that work within the organization, fueling concerns that the administration is looking to impose its views on the agency’s independent, international broadcast networks. 

Michael Pack, who was confirmed by the Senate to lead the USAGM earlier this month, dismissed the heads of four news organizations, according to multiple reports.

Among them was Jamie Fly, who took over as head of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) in August. Fly wrote an email to colleagues late Wednesday evening that said he was relieved of his duties as president and CEO “effective immediately,” according to a copy obtained by The Hill.

ADVERTISEMENT

The ex-RFE/RL chief said he was leaving “with great sadness” and that leading the organization for a year “has been the honor of a lifetime.”

“I had hoped to work with you much longer and to make progress on the initiatives that we’ve begun to help ensure that RFE/RL is as impactful in the coming decades as it was over the last 70 years,” he wrote.

He said Daisy Sindelar, the current editor in chief of RFE/RL, would take over as acting president.

Pack on Wednesday also fired the heads of the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Radio Free Asia and the Open Technology Fund, an internet freedom grantee of the agency, The New York Times and CNN reported.

Libby Liu, the fired head of the Open Technology Fund, had offered her resignation and planned to leave in July but was fired by Pack anyway, according to CNN.

ADVERTISEMENT

The firings follow the resignations on Monday of two senior editors of the flagship Voice of America, Director Amanda Bennett and Deputy Director Sandy Sugawara.

Pack is a conservative filmmaker under investigation for allegedly misusing funds from his nonprofit Public Media Fund for his for-profit film agency. Pack is also an ally of the far-right former senior White House adviser Stephen Bannon.

Critics of Pack’s appointment fear he will compromise the independence of the congressionally funded broadcast networks and impose partisan senior leadership.

His first appointment appears to be Jeffrey Shapiro as head of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, CNN reported. Shapiro is also an ally of Bannon’s.

Sen. Bob MenendezRobert (Bob) MenendezLighthizer denies Bolton claim that Trump asked Xi for election help GOP’s Obama-era probes fuel Senate angst Government watchdog: ‘No evidence’ Pompeo violated Hatch Act with Kansas trips MORE (D-N.J.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has oversight of the USAGM, called the firings an “egregious breach” of the independence of the broadcast networks.

ADVERTISEMENT

“As feared, Michael Pack has confirmed he is on a political mission to destroy the USAGM’s independence and undermine its historic role,” Menendez said in a statement Thursday. “The wholesale firing of the Agency’s network heads, and disbanding of corporate boards to install President Trump’s political allies is an egregious breach of this organization’s history and mission from which it may never recover.”

He added, “This latest attack is sadly the latest — but not the last — in the Trump Administration’s efforts to transform U.S. institutions rooted in the principles of democracy into tools for the President’s own personal agenda.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot EngelEliot Lance EngelOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Top Democrats introduce bill to stop Trump’s Germany withdrawal | Esper announces internal review on diversity in military | Top foreign policy Pentagon official resigns after White House passes on nomination Despite Trump’s threat, top general says White House hasn’t given order to pull troops from Germany Top Democrats introduce bill to stop Trump’s Germany withdrawal MORE (D-N.Y.) had said earlier Wednesday he learned that Pack had retreated from his plan to fire senior leadership, having raised the alarm about such a purge the day before.

Yet Engel said he remained deeply concerned about the new leadership at the USAGM and was planning to keep an eye on the agency.

The head of the U.S. Park Police was accused of multiple illegal body cavity searches between 1999 and 2004, The New York Times reported Thursday. 

There were reportedly at least four investigations into acting Park Police Chief Gregory Monahan, whose law enforcement agency was one of several that controversially used chemical agents to disperse protesters in front of the White House this month. 

National Park Service spokeswoman Alexandra Picavet told The Hill in a statement that the cases referenced in the Times article were investigated and that the accusations were deemed unfounded. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“This means that the allegations were false or not factual, or he was exonerated, meaning the incident occurred but was lawful and proper,” Picavet said. 

She added that a review of internal affairs records found no “sustained dispositions” that led to disciplinary or adverse action against Monahan.

The Times reported that the four probes were mentioned in a letter by Kenneth L. Wainstein, who was serving as the U.S. attorney in Washington. The letter reportedly said that in one case, federal lawyers decided not to prosecute him and that he was cleared by the Park Police in two others, while one investigation was still pending. 

In a fifth case, Monahan was accused of searching a man for drugs by reaching into the man’s buttocks, according to the newspaper. In that case, Monahan reportedly said he searched the man, whom he had pulled over for a cracked windshield, because he saw the man “clinching his buttocks” and had found a package of crack cocaine after patting the man down. 

Judge Gerald B. Lee said in his decision that the search was not constitutional and that he didn’t believe Monahan’s testimony, the Times reported. 

ADVERTISEMENT

However, Picavet told The Hill that accusations of “testimonial misconduct” were unfounded.

The Park Police has faced scrutiny in recent weeks for the manner in which protesters were cleared from Lafayette Square in front of the White House on June 1. Shortly after the incident, President TrumpDonald John TrumpProtesters tear down, burn statue of Confederate general in DC US attorney in NYC who spearheaded probes of Trump allies refuses to leave as DOJ pushes ouster Trump to host 4th of July event despite pleas from lawmakers to cancel MORE walked through the park to visit a nearby church, leading critics to believe the protesters were cleared for a photo-op. 

Monahan has said that the protesters were cleared after they threw bricks, frozen water bottles and “caustic” liquids at officers. However, Attorney General William BarrBill BarrUS attorney in NYC who spearheaded probes of Trump allies refuses to leave as DOJ pushes ouster Barr echoes Trump’s concerns about mail-in voting, says it could ‘open the floodgates of potential fraud’ Mueller report re-released with fewer redactions after legal battle MORE described to The Associated Press a meeting about moving protesters away from the area in advance. 

The acting chief also initially denied that tear gas was used; however, a park police spokesperson later said this characterization was a “mistake.”

Senate Republicans and the Justice Department unveiled proposals Wednesday that would scale back legal protections for social media platforms targeted last month by President TrumpDonald John TrumpLincoln Project launches new ad hitting Trump over China policies Trump criticizes Bolton as memoir excerpts offer scathing account of White House Bolton book portrays ‘stunningly uninformed’ Trump MORE in an executive order.

The legislative and administrative moves take aim at a portion of a 1996 law that gives internet companies immunity from lawsuits for content posted on their sites by third parties and allows them to make “good faith” efforts to moderate content.

The provision, known as Section 230, has come under sharp criticism recently from the right, with Republicans accusing Silicon Valley of abusing the legal protection to censor conservative content.

ADVERTISEMENT

In an attempt to erode some of those protections, Sen. Josh HawleyJoshua (Josh) David HawleyHillicon Valley: Senate Republicans, DOJ target Section 230 | Facial recognition under the spotlight | Zoom launches E2E encrypted beta Republicans, DOJ propose scaling back social media liability protections Republicans face long odds of changing provision on Confederate-named bases MORE (R-Mo.) introduced a bill Wednesday that would make it easier for individuals to sue platforms that carry out improper moderation policies.

The Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioHillicon Valley: Senate Republicans, DOJ target Section 230 | Facial recognition under the spotlight | Zoom launches E2E encrypted beta Republicans, DOJ propose scaling back social media liability protections Trump signs bill to sanction Chinese officials over Uighur rights MORE (Fla.), Mike BraunMichael BraunKey differences in the House, Senate police reform bills Hillicon Valley: Senate Republicans, DOJ target Section 230 | Facial recognition under the spotlight | Zoom launches E2E encrypted beta Republicans, DOJ propose scaling back social media liability protections MORE (Ind.) and Tom CottonTom Bryant CottonHillicon Valley: Senate Republicans, DOJ target Section 230 | Facial recognition under the spotlight | Zoom launches E2E encrypted beta Republicans, DOJ propose scaling back social media liability protections Overnight Defense: Trump plan to pull troops from Germany gets bipartisan pushback | Top GOP senator says it’s time to look at changing Confederate-named bases | GOP divided over renaming Army bases MORE (Ark.), would require companies to prove a “duty of good faith” in their content moderation in order to receive Section 230 protections.

Violating that duty would be treated as worthy of damages, entitling plaintiffs to $5,000 for each affected user, along with attorney’s fees.

The measure would apply only to “edge providers,” which the bill defines as platforms with more than 30 million users in the U.S., or 300 million globally, and with over $1.5 billion in global revenue.

The Justice Department also put forward a proposal Wednesday, urging Congress to dramatically reduce Section 230’s scope.

The proposal would deny Section 230 immunity for content dealing with child exploitation, terrorism and cyber-stalking. It also recommends stripping protections from platforms that facilitate or solicit unlawful content or activity by third parties.

ADVERTISEMENT

The DOJ called on Congress to make other changes to the statutory language, such as removing the “otherwise objectionable” phrase that allows platforms to engage in content moderation and replacing it with “unlawful” and “promotes terrorism.”

Another proposed change would add a statutory definition of “good faith” that requires content removal be consistent with terms of service and be accompanied by a “reasonable explanation.”

Wednesday’s proposals come less than a month after Trump’s executive order and reveal how Republicans plan to go after tech companies.

Trump’s order, among other things, directs an agency within the Commerce Department to file a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to clarify the scope of Section 230.

The order implies that a new rule could make social media platforms liable for claims based on third-party content as well as their efforts to moderate their platforms, but does not have the legal authority to change the law passed by Congress in 1996.

A lawsuit has already been filed against the order, and many more are expected.

Tech experts and Silicon Valley were critical of both proposals rolled out Wednesday.

Mary Anne Franks, a professor at University of Miami School of Law, called Hawley’s bill a brazen attempt to flout the First Amendment prohibition against Congress making laws that abridge free speech.

“To penalize social media platforms and other Internet services for ‘selective’ enforcement of their own policies is to penalize them for exercising their First Amendment rights as private entities,” she told The Hill in an email. “Private companies, unlike government entities, have the First Amendment right to refuse to promote or host the speech of others, for whatever reason they like.”

David Morar, a fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Digital Interests Lab, said the bill could end up being counterproductive by dissuading platforms from taking any action at all because of lack of clarity over what would be considered good faith or not.

Jon Berroy, the interim president and CEO of the Internet Association — a trade association that represents companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter — was similarly critical of the bill’s proposed mechanism.

“Opening up those moderation decisions to second-guessing via a never ending slew of frivolous lawsuits would not make the internet better or safer,” he said in a statement. “The First Amendment exists to protect individuals and entities from exactly this type of governmental intrusion into private activity, something courts have repeatedly affirmed.”

The Internet Association also slammed the DOJ’s proposed rule changes, saying they would “make it harder, not easier, for online platforms to make their platforms safe.”

The Computer & Communications Industry Association took particular issue with removing “otherwise objectionable” from the second part of the statute, saying it would limit the ability of companies to moderate problematic content.

“This is a shockingly ill-conceived proposal,” said Matt Schruers, president of the group that also represents many major tech companies.

“Amid a pandemic, pervasive racial injustice, in an election season, the Justice Department proposes to remove from this critical statute the language that provides legal certainty for the removal of everything from coronavirus misinformation to racism to disinformation by foreign intelligence operatives,” he said.

The Supreme Court on Thursday announced it would fast-track its review of a challenge by several death row inmates to the Trump administration’s revised approach to federal executions.

The four inmates, most of whom are scheduled to be killed next month, argue that a lethal injection protocol that the Department of Justice (DOJ) adopted last year violates federal law.

The justices on Thursday ordered the DOJ to respond to the inmates’ petition for appeal by the following day.

ADVERTISEMENT

A federal execution has not been carried out since 2003, due in part to a widespread shortage during the Obama administration of lethal injection drugs in the so-called three-drug cocktail.

Attorney General William BarrBill BarrSupreme Court fast-tracks death row challenge to DOJ execution method Trump wants to find and prosecute whoever told media about bunker visit: NYT Bolton claims House should have investigated other impeachable offenses by Trump MORE announced last July that federal capital punishment would resume with the use of a single drug, pentobarbital sodium.

At issue is whether the Trump administration’s drug protocol violates the Federal Death Penalty Act, which says that the state where a capital crime was committed should determine the method of execution.

In April, the D.C. Circuit panel ruled 2-1 in favor of a Trump administration plan to resume federal death sentences under a new lethal injection protocol, prompting the inmates’ appeal to the Supreme Court.

On Monday, Barr scheduled the executions to take place in July and August.