National Roundup

Texas
Charge dropped against Black man walking on icy Plano street

PLANO, Texas (AP) — A misdemeanor charge has been dropped against a Black man who was arrested last week for walking home on a street during a snowstorm in Texas.

Rodney Reese, 18, was arrested Feb. 16 in Plano and charged with being a pedestrian in the roadway, news outlets reported.

Police said officers received a call about a Black man seen stumbling along in the middle of the snowy street wearing a short-sleeved shirt and were sent to perform a wellness check.

Police released body camera footage of the encounter on Facebook on Friday. In the video, police are seen following Reese and repeatedly asking him where he is going and if he was OK, to which he replies that he is fine and he is on his way home.

Reese told KDFW-TV that he was walking home from his job at a Walmart and didn’t stop for the officers because he didn’t need their help.

Officers continued to follow Reese for about two minutes before stopping him, telling him they were “doing an investigation” and informing him that he was being detained.

Reese replied “no” and continued walking, but was stopped again. In the video, a brief scuffle is seen as officers attempted to handcuff Reese, who can be heard asking to be released.

According to the Facebook post, the arresting officer noted that Reese resisted arrest but chose not to charge him.

Plano Police Chief Ed Drain told KDFW-TV that the charge was dropped against Reese because the arrest wasn’t consistent with why officers were called to investigate.

“They should’ve taken him home, is where he should’ve gone,” Drain said.

Drain backed his officers, stating that at the time of the arrest they didn’t know Reese’s age, where he worked or where he lived.

Drain also said he doesn’t believe race was a factor in the arrest, but added that he “can’t get inside people’s heads.”

Reese said, however, that he believes the call that brought officers to the scene and his subsequent arrest were based on the color of his skin.


Washington
High court formally rejects Trump election challenge cases

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday formally rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 election, including disputes from Pennsylvania that had divided the justices just before the election.

The cases the justices rejected involved election challenges filed by former President Donald Trump and his allies in five states President Joe Biden won: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Other than the disputes from Pennsylvania, the justices’ decision not to hear the cases was unsurprising. The court had previously taken no action in those cases and in January had turned away pleas that the cases be fast-tracked, again suggesting the justices were not interested in hearing them.

At the same time, the justices’ decision not to hear Pennsylvania disputes involving a Republican challenge to state courts’ power over federal elections continued to provoke strong feelings from some of the justices. On Monday, three of the nine justices said the court should have taken up the issue.

“A decision in these cases would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election...But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch also would have taken up the issue.

Thomas wrote that the court was inviting “further confusion and erosion of voter confidence” by not taking up the issue.

Washington
Court won’t revive porn star’s defamation suit against Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from porn star Stormy Daniels, who sought to revive a defamation lawsuit she filed against former President Donald Trump.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place a lower court ruling dismissing the case.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, alleges she had an affair with Trump in 2006 and was paid $130,000 as part of a nondisclosure agreement days before the 2016 presidential election. She sued him for defamation after he dismissed her claims of being threatened to keep quiet about the tryst as a “total con job.”

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2018 and ordered Daniels to pay nearly $300,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Nebraska
Judge:railroad talks should be included in lawsuits

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that the details of conversations between the nation’s four largest railroads should be included in lawsuits challenging billions of dollars of charges the railroads imposed in the past.

The ruling on Friday undercuts one of the defenses Union Pacific, BNSF, CSX and Norfolk Southern had offered in dozens of lawsuits major companies filed last year questioning the way railroads set rates. The lawsuits say the railroads conspired to boost prices starting in 2003 by imposing coordinated fuel surcharges and pocketing billions of dollars in profits.

The price-fixing allegations have been winding their way through U.S. courts for more than a decade since several companies first filed similar lawsuits in 2007. The cases are moving forward individually after an appellate judge ruled last year that the case didn’t qualify for class-action status for as many as 16,000 shippers affected by the rates.

The companies that filed the lawsuits — which include carmakers like Hyundai, a variety of manufacturers such as Campbell Soup and power companies like Dominion Energy — say the four railroads had meetings, phone calls and email communications through which they embarked on the conspiracy to apply the fuel surcharges to all traffic to generate profits.

One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Stephen Neuwirth, said he’s glad the details of those conversations can be presented at trial.

“That evidence establishes that for at least five years, the railroads violated U.S. law by coordinating fuel surcharges as a way to raise rail freight prices,” Neuwirth said.

In the lawsuits, the railroads have argued that their fuel surcharges were legal and were simply designed to recover the skyrocketing cost of fuel at the time.

The railroads had also argued that an obscure law that allows railroads to discuss rates on shipments that cross multiple railroads should have protected their conversations about rates, but the judge rejected that argument on Friday.

Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern did not immediately respond to questions about the lawsuits on Monday. BNSF officials declined to comment.