UNBIASED - Minneapolis Shooting, Trump $1 Coins, AI Child Porn Ruling, Yosemite Land Exchange & More

Episode Date: September 3, 2026

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: What We Know About the Minneapolis Shooting (0:51) Supreme Court Rules Ballroom Construction Can Continue (4:53) Court Blocks Newest Birthright Citizenship Order (11:34) Trump $1 Coin Unavailable Hours After Going on Sale (15:10) Iran Hackers Are 'Relentlessly' Going After U.S. Critical Infrastructure Systems (~21:23) Trump Administration Reportedly Considering Land Exchange With Private Developer in Yosemite. Here's What To Know. (~25:01) Quick Hitters (~33:37) Rumor Has It: New Proposed Bill Makes It Easier to Add Chemical to Food? An Appeals Court Rules AI-Generated Child Porn Is Protected By First Amendment? (~40:00) Critical Thinking Segment (~54:52) ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Scammers are everywhere! But they can't harm you, if they can't find you! Use code JORDAN at https://incogni.com/jordan and get 60% off an annual plan! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. It's Thursday, September 3rd, and we're talking about yesterday's shooting in Minneapolis. The Supreme Court's ballroom ruling trumps $1 coin, a court ruling dealing with the First Amendment and child pornography. That was a very highly requested story this week. So we're going to cover that. And rumor has it, actually. We're also. going to talk about Iran's reported hacking attempts and more. As always, if you love today's show, please take a few seconds and click that share button, send it off to someone you know, a friend, a family member, a co-worker, whoever. And just as a heads up, Monday is a federal holiday.

So there will not be an episode from me, but I will be back with you on Thursday. Okay, first story. We have this story out of Minneapolis. It's kind of still developing, I suppose, but there was a shooting inside a downtown apartment building that left two people dead, several others injured, and the suspected shooter is also dead. So police say they started getting calls 9-1 calls yesterday afternoon about a shooting at a high-rise apartment building near the Minneapolis Convention Center. Officers went inside the building around 4.39 p.m. They found people who had already been shot and then heard additional gunfire coming from somewhere

above them. So they basically just followed the sound of the gunfire up through the building. And then when they got to one of the upper floors, they say there was some sort of haze in the hallway that made it really difficult for them to see. It's not clear what that haze was at this point. But during all of that, two officers were shot. One was shot in the leg. It is expected to survive. Another had to undergo surgery. And then a third officer was also injured, although police said that officer's injuries were not life-threatening. As far as civilian victims, one person was found dead at the scene. Another person later died at the hospital. The identities of those victims have not been released. Several other people had also been shot. They were also taken to the hospital. And then police did

find the suspected shooter dead inside the building. Now, I have read reports that said the shooter died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but then there's other reports that say that hasn't been confirmed. So just know that at this point, or at least the point that, you know, I've recorded this episode, that was not a confirmed fact. Another thing that hasn't been confirmed is the shooter's name. As of now, CBS has reported that multiple law enforcement sources said the subject is a 35-year-old Carlton Neil Johnson. However, interim Minneapolis police chief Bill Peterson did not confirm the identity. He did say the police were familiar with who this individual. was, but he did not confirm the identity. As far as motive goes, we don't know for sure what

the motive was. There is some potentially relevant context involving the person that CBS's law enforcement sources have identified as the shooter. According to an eviction complaint filed against Carlton Neil Johnson, he signed a lease back in March 2025, but he received a letter this past June saying that his lease would be terminated on June 29th. That letter listed six incidents starting in January, including one in March where Johnson allegedly assaulted a resident. On June 11th, Johnson went to the building's management office and displayed a gun to staff members. And around the same time, he had told other residents in the building that he had just bought a new gun. Two days later, Johnson allegedly showed his gun to people

walking on the sidewalk where he was. The eviction complaint says Johnson, quote, continued to breach the lease and last chance directive, end quote. And on June 19th, Johnson made, quote, concerning verbal statements, end quote, about using a gun to a security officer while lifting up his shirt and showing his firearm. Then on June 25th, Johnson walked around the block with his firearm visible and brandished a firearm at another resident in the common area. sources said Johnson had been officially evicted from his apartment earlier in the day yesterday, and court documents show he had a court hearing scheduled regarding that eviction on September 11th. So obviously all of that is relevant context that investigators will look at, but at this point,

we don't have a confirmed motive. The FBI and other state agencies and federal agencies are helping the Minneapolis Police Department with this investigation, so perhaps we'll learn. more in the coming days. Next story. So a couple of weeks ago, I told you that Chief Justice Roberts had temporarily allowed construction on the White House ballroom to continue. That actually might have been last week.

I honestly am losing track at this point. But my point is to say when we last talked about it, that was an administrative stay. So it essentially put a lower court injunction on pause while the Supreme Court took more time to decide what to do with the administration's request. And now the full court has decided. In a five to four ruling, the Supreme Court granted the administration's request to keep the lower court injunction blocked, which means that construction can continue while the administration asked the Supreme Court to formally take up the case. But once again, the Supreme Court did not rule that Trump has the legal authority to build this ballroom, right? In fact, the majority specifically

said that it was not deciding whether the project itself is illegal. Instead, the majority said the administration is likely to win on a different issue, which is why it ultimately granted the administration's request to block that lower court injunction. And the issue that the majority said the administration is likely to win on is whether the plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, has standing to bring this lawsuit in the first place. Now, remember, we talked about this, I think it was just a week ago, you cannot sue the federal government just because you think it is doing something illegal. You have to show that whatever the government is doing is causing you some sort of concrete and specific injury. That is standing. Without it, you cannot sue. And because

the National Trust is an organization, it has to show that at least one of its members would personally have standing to sue. So the trust relied on one of its' organization. So the trust relied on one of its members named Allison Hogan. She lives in D.C. She has spent decades studying and working in historic preservation, and she said she visits the area around the White House about once a month. Her argument is essentially that changing the White House in this way harms her aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests because she often visits and studies the building and doesn't want to do that with a ballroom of this scale, height, and design. And the five Justice majority said that probably is not enough to meet the standing requirements. Their position

is that being offended by or not liking the way that a government project looks isn't by itself a concrete personal injury that allows you to sue in federal court. And they said that if it were enough, you could potentially have people suing over all kinds of government projects simply because they don't like how those projects look. The majority also said there were other factors that weighed in favor of the administration because remember the government has argued that the ballroom and underground military and security facility are being built as one integrated project. So the administration submitted statements from a number of senior national security officials arguing that stopping the above ground construction could create security and structural issues. The secretary of the army,

for example, said that the height and weight of the structure above the above the, the ground above the underground facility are important to protecting the underground facility from physical attacks. So the majority essentially said that those potential harms also weigh in favor of allowing this project to continue moving forward. Now, interestingly, Chief Justice Roberts, who was the one who temporarily allowed construction to continue a couple of weeks ago, dissented this time. And justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined him. Those are the the court's three liberal justices. So at first, Roberts granted the administrative stay and allowed construction to continue in order to give the court more time to consider the request. But once the

court considered the administration's request for a longer stay, Roberts actually said that the lower court injunction should be allowed to take effect and above ground construction should therefore stop. So Roberts disagreed with the majority on standing. His argument is that Hougland isn't just a random person saying, I think the ballroom is ugly. She's someone who has spent decades working in historic preservation. She regularly visits the White House area. She specifically has an interest in viewing and studying the White House in its historic form. And Roberts pointed to previous Supreme Court cases recognizing these kinds of quote unquote aesthetic injuries in other contexts, like people being harmed by environmental changes to places or wildlife that they might go see

National parks, things like that. So Roberts disagreed with the majority on standing. But Roberts also addressed the underlying issue that the majority did not decide. He said that he thinks the ballroom construction is likely unlawful. So there are really two sets of federal laws that the two sides are pointing to here. On one hand, there's this federal law that says you cannot build a building or structure on federal parkland in D.C. unless Congress expressly authorizes it. President's Park, where the White House sits is federal parkland. And Congress has not passed a law expressly saying that this ballroom can be built. The administration, though, says it doesn't need that kind of express approval because there are

other federal laws that Congress enacted that give the government authority to make improvements and alterations to the White House and give the National Park Service the authority to administer and make certain improvements within President's Park. But Roberts, what he said here is essentially he doesn't think that those laws that the administration as cited are enough to satisfy that separate requirement in the law that says Congress has to expressly authorize a new building that is built on federal parkland. So as of now, you know, construction continues. However, the administration now has to file its actual petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, hear the merits of the case.

If the Supreme Court says no, then this stay automatically ends and the lower court injunction would take effect, meaning most of the above ground construction would have to stop. But if the court agrees to hear the case, then that the stay would remain in place while the Supreme Court considers the case. So we have an answer to the question we were waiting on last time, which is, yes, that the lower court injunction will remain blocked for now, but we still don't have a final ruling on whether the ballroom is legal. That will come at some point down the road. Speaking of legal challenges, a federal judge in Maryland has blocked Trump's most recent executive order that seeks to again limit birthright citizenship. So this was the order that he issued after the Supreme Court ruled that his previous order violated the 14th Amendment.

And actually, he issued two new executive orders after that Supreme Court ruling. So one specifically involved, quote unquote, birth tourism, which involves traveling to the country for the primary purpose of giving birth here. And then the other order identifies additional categories of children that the administration says are not entitled to automatic citizenship. And if you want to deep dive on either of those orders, I did cover them pretty substantially in the August 10th episode. Anyway, the orders were challenged shortly after they were signed in August, actually challenged by the same two immigration advocacy groups that challenged Trump's first birthright citizenship order. And after they filed that challenge, they asked for a preliminary. injunction, which again, blocks something from taking effect or blocks someone from taking an action while the case plays out. In order for an injunction to be granted, okay, the plaintiffs

generally have to meet four factors. So the plaintiffs have to be likely to succeed on the actual merits of their claim. They have to show that they will suffer serious and irreparable harm that money cannot fix if the injunction is not granted. The harm that the plaintiffs would suffer if the injunction wasn't granted generally has to outweigh the harm the defendant would suffer if the injunction was granted. And granting the injunction generally can't hurt the general public or go against public policy. So the judge weighed those four factors in this case and determined that the injunction should in fact be granted as it pertains to the birthright citizenship order. The judge did not block the birth tourism order because that wasn't part of this legal challenge. So on the birthright

citizenship order, the judge wrote, the order is, quote, almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to the certified class for the simple reason that the Supreme Court in Barbara already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth. This court must once again preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the president's most recent attempt to strip the right to citizenship from them, and quote. Now, the administration argued that this order is from the one that the Supreme Court struck down because it's a lot narrower and because it's meant to cover specific categories that the administration says fall within the exceptions that the Supreme Court left in place. And in addition to that substantive argument, the administration also argued that the lawsuit here, that the plaintiffs filing this lawsuit was premature because the federal agencies hadn't yet issued their their final guidance, explaining exactly how this executive order would be implemented. But the judge rejected both of those arguments and enjoined the administration from enforcing.

So I would imagine the administration will appeal this injunction. But as of right now, just so we're on the same page, that latest birthright citizenship executive order cannot be enforced against the protected class. Now, the protected class in this case includes children born in the U.S. after February 19, 2025, whose mothers were either here illegally or here legally, but temporarily, and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or green card holders. So that's the deal with that. Now I just very quickly want to give an update on those $1 Trump coins that we've talked about before because they officially went on sale yesterday through the U.S. Mint, but within a few hours, they were either

back-ordered or unavailable. So at noon yesterday, the Mint started selling these $1 Trump coins in two forms. You could either buy a roll of 25 coins for $61 or a bag of 100 coins for $154.50. But by Wednesday afternoon, the 25 coin rolls were listed as being on back order and the 100 coin bags were listed as currently unavailable. Now, the product limit for the coin roll was $150,000 and the limit for the bag was $50,000. Plus each household was only allowed to order. order two of each. So those were kind of the parameters around these coins. There were 250,000 special versions of the coin mixed into the rolls and bags. They were considered special because they were minted on the 4th of July and they had a little July 4th mark on them. So those are

kind of randomly mixed in these in these bags and rolls. It's not clear whether more coins will be available at a later date, but just to give you an idea of what they look like. So on the front is Trump's portrait with the words in God we trust next to it. Liberty across the top of the coin. And then the years 1776 to 2026 along the bottom of the coin. Then on the back is the presidential seal surrounded by the words United States of America with one dollar written underneath. And just as a note, these coins have been called gold Trump coins. They are in fact gold colored, but they are not made of gold. They're mostly copper with zinc, manganese, nickel. And they are legal tender. So they, you know, they can be used as money. They are legal

tender. Now, if you remember, there was a legal debate over these coins because there is a federal law that says only the portrait of a deceased individual may appear on United States currency and securities. So critics have argued that that means you cannot put a living president on a one dollar coin. The administration, though, has relied on a separate law that Congress passed in 2020 specifically for America's 250th anniversary. And that law allows the Treasury Secretary to issue special $1 coins in 26 with designs celebrating the semi-quincennial. And when Congress wrote the restrictions for those coins, it specifically said that a portrait of a living person cannot appear on the reverse of the coin, on the back of the coin. But it didn't say the same thing about the front.

And Trump's portrait is on the front. So the administration's position is that this specific law allows for this design. Critics, though, argue that the older restriction on living people appearing on U.S. currency still applies, regardless of which side Trump is on. So the legal debate there is really over how those two laws reconcile with one another. And as of now, a court hasn't answered that question. Let's take a quick break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Iran's hacking attempts, the controversy over Yosemite, and more.

Welcome back. New reports say Iran-linked hackers have been trying to break into a much broader range of U.S. infrastructure, including our energy systems, telecommunications networks, and water systems. So NBC News spoke with four people who have access to government and private sector cyber threat information. And they said that over the last several weeks, Iranian hackers have been trying to get into automated systems that are connected to the internet. Importantly, according to the those sources, these latest attempts have not been successful. When I say automated systems, we are talking about computers that help control physical equipment. So for example, a water utility might have a computer connected to the internet that allows workers to remotely control pumps or valves or monitor water pressure. An electric utility could have similar systems in place controlling pieces of the power grid. These are typically called industrial control systems. one of the specific devices you'll hear about is called a programmable logic controller or PLC. It's basically a small computer that's programmed to tell a piece of equipment what to do.

And the reason that these can be so vulnerable is because some of them are connected directly to the internet and some are running old software or still using pretty standard passwords. So if one of these systems is connected to the internet and it isn't properly secured, a hacker could potentially get into it and start messing with the actual equipment that it controls, pumps, valves, parts of the power grid. It just depends on what's actually hacked. And that's why federal agencies have been warning infrastructure operators for months now to get these systems off the public internet, whenever possible, and at the very least, stop using weak or default passwords. Now, we have already seen versions of this happen. You might remember back in July,

water and wastewater utilities in at least seven states reported cyber attacks on internet connected control systems. In some of those cases, the hackers changed passwords, changed IP addresses, and even locked employees out of the system. The FBI did say that some facilities saw things like loss of water pressure and flooding. So we've already seen this happen a bit. There was already a concern at that time about Iran. And we know that because just days before the attacks were reported, federal agencies warned that Iran-affiliated hackers were targeting these internet-connected PLCs across U.S. critical infrastructure. NBC later reported that investigators believe Iranian hackers were most likely the ones behind those July water

attacks. However, I should note that FBI did not attribute that specific campaign to Iran, at least not publicly. The cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency later said that more than 100 internet exposed water and wastewater facilities were targeted during the month of July. So as part of this new report from NBC, NBC also talked about a telegram channel, which presents itself as a voice for Iranian cyber operations. It's allegedly used by an Iranian hacking group. And a message on that channel reportedly said, quote, soon the United States will witness unexpected and critical events in the energy, water, and telecommunications industries. So water systems have been one of the most visible recent targets, but according to this new NBC

report, Iran-linked hackers have also been trying to get into telecommunications, energy, and other U.S. infrastructure. Okay, this next story involves Yosemite National Park and a potential land exchange. So this was a highly requested story. I was contemplating putting it in rumor hazard, but I just figured I would put it in as a story. This is what's going on. The outlet noticed reported that the Trump administration has been working with a private developer on a potential land exchange that could give the developer more direct access into Yosemite National Park. The Interior Department, however, has pushed back on that reporting and says there's no agreement to trade Yosemite land, no decision has been made to pursue a land exchange, and says any reporting suggesting otherwise,

is quote unquote false. So this is what we know. A real estate company called Kingsbarn Realty Capital, actually, owns 83 acres of land right outside the western boundary of Yosemite. The property is surrounded on three sides by National Forest with Yosemite basically on the fourth side. Now there's already a way to get to this property, but you have to drive roughly 11 miles on a dirt road through the Stanislaus National Forest to get there. However, one of Yosemite's main roads, Highway 120, is only about 700 feet away on the other side of the park boundary. So King Barn basically wants a much shorter road connecting its property directly to that

highway. Notice reported, quote, since the spring of 2025, the Trump administration has been looking into ways it could seed a roughly quarter mile strip of land inside Yosembe. to a company that is operated by real estate developer and investment firm Kingsbourne Realty Capital. Officials are proposing the park service give up the land or quote unquote interest in the land in the form of an easement and in return receive land of equal value somewhere in California that has yet to be decided. And quote, notice also cited sources who said, quote, the planning process has created a tense

environment inside the National Park Service for people involved. King's Barn's proposal is backed by the full weight of the Interior Department's top political leadership, end quote. And again, Interior disputes the idea that the government has agreed to do this, and the department says that what's happened so far is that Kings Barn Express interests in a possible land exchange and the Park Service has been gathering information. But there's no approved land swap and no commitment from the federal government to move forward with one. Now, there are actual government documents that are related to this proposal. So a project fact sheet and documents submitted to Congress have been reviewed by several news outlets. And according to those outlets, the documents show that the landowner is seeking a quote unquote interest in land inside Yosemite in order to build a road connecting what the documents call a, quote, planned commercial development, end quote, to big oak flat road. The documents also reportedly say the park service does not believe. it has the authority to simply grant Kings Barn that property interest. So instead it's been working with the landowner on the possibility of a land exchange where Kings Barn would acquire a different piece of property somewhere else in California

that would benefit the National Park Service and exchange that for the Yosemite property interest that it wants. And we'll talk about that more in a second, the legality behind land exchanges. But just to be clear, these documents show that this is, you know, it's being discussed. The documents don't show that a deal has been approved. In fact, at the time Congress was notified, the replacement property in California hadn't yet been identified, and the Yosemite property still had to be appraised. So I think that helps explain that the, I guess, difference in reporting or the disagreement here. There clearly is a proposal being explored inside

the government, but the Interior Department says there's no final agreement and notices reporting about officials pushing the Park Service to make the deal happen are quote-unquote false. So let's talk about the law. Okay. There's a federal law that gives the Interior Secretary authority to conduct certain land exchanges involving National Park Service property. The Secretary can accept non-federal property within a national park system unit in exchange for federally owned property in the same state that the secretary determines is suitable for exchange or disposal. The properties are supposed to be approximately equal in value or the difference has to be made up with money. So this would explain why they're talking about an exchange instead of simply giving

Kingsbarn an easement for the road. But there's another law called the National Park Service Organic Act. And that law says that parks have to be managed to conserve their scenery, natural and historic resources and leave them quote unquote unimpaired for future generations. And in 1978, Congress actually strengthened that protection through an amendment. So now the law says that park service cannot manage parkland in a way that undermines the values and purposes for which the park was created unless Congress has directly and specifically authorized it. So that's why you have some former park service officials, including former NPS director John Jarvis, who are saying that this particular exchange might require Congress. Kings Barnes attorneys, they have a different take. They argue

that the road would actually have an environmental benefit because people traveling between the property and Yosemite would drive substantially fewer miles. So if this reported exchange does become real, that is the legal fight that we could see play out, whether congressional approval is necessary. I do want to talk about this, though, because this particular piece of land is interesting. It has a pretty long history. So in LLC controlled by Kings Barn bought this 83-acre parcel of land in 2024 for about $4 million. Before that, it was owned by a California developer named Lewis Geiser, who bought the land back in 1998, and he wanted to build a resort. And interestingly, in the early 2000s, the park service was actually interested in working with Geiser as part of this bigger plan to

move some of the parking and lodging and other developmental pressure out of Yosemite Valley. That plan ultimately fell through and Park Service eventually refused to give Geyser the road access that he wanted through the federal land. So Geyser ends up suing. He sued in 2007, but he lost. He lost first in the district court and then again on appeal. And the judges said that he could not force the federal government to let him use those roads to create the shorter access that he wanted. Gajar didn't give up, though. After that, in 2018, during Trump's first administration, he was again trying to get the roughly 700-foot easement.

A Mariposa County supervisor even proposed sending a letter to Congressman Tom McClintock asking him to secure it, but that request was actually withdrawn before the county approved the letter, so it didn't go through. And I haven't been able to find any information as to whether Trump's Interior Department ultimately even considered the idea. But, This is all to say the effort failed again. So Geyser eventually sells the property to Kingsbourne. And when Kingsburn bought it in 2024, Kingsburn went to the Biden administration and tried to reopen the road issue with the park service.

According to Yosemite's former superintendent, the Park Service told Kingsbarn that it didn't think it could legally grant the access they were asking for. And the issue was, it was basically clear. closed when she left in February 2025. Well, then Trump came back into office and by the spring of 2025, interior officials were looking into the proposal again, except this time, instead of simply giving Kingsbar and the easement it had been asking for, they started exploring this land exchange as a possible legal way to make the road happen. So now we're here. Okay, that's the history. But again, if this reported exchange becomes real, there will almost certainly be a,

legal fight and in that case it'll come down to whether this particular change given the circumstances given where it is you know given the facts that surround it can legally be done under the administration's existing authority and therefore done you know within the the park service and interior department or whether congress would have to approve it okay let's do some quick hitters army secretary dan driscoll resigned this week amid reported tensions between driscoll and defense secretary hegeset U.S. officials said the two had disagreed on several personnel decisions, including Hegss's removal or sideline of senior army officers. A Utah judge ruled that Tyler Robinson will stand trial on all charges, including aggravated murder and the killing of Charlie Kirk. The judge found prosecutors presented enough evidence at this stage to move the case forward, including the allegation that the shooting endangered others.

That allows prosecutors to continue seeking the death penalty. A Coast Guard plane carrying Homeland Security Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen and other DHS officials made an emergency landing near D.C. yesterday after one of its engines failed. The aircraft had 14 people on board and Mullen said the landing went smoothly with no reported injuries. Apple Maps has followed Google's lead and changed Lake Ontario to Lake America for users in the United States. However, users outside the United States still see Lake Ontario. mortgage rates have climbed to their highest level in more than a year, with the average 30-year fixed rate approaching 7% after falling below 6% earlier this year. The increase has been driven in part by rising treasury yields and renewed inflation concerns, including

higher energy prices tied to the war with Iran. Gloria Steinem, the journalist, author, and longtime women's rights activist has died at age 92. Steinem became a prime. prominent figure in the U.S. feminist movement beginning in the 1960s. She co-founded Ms. Magazine and the National Women's Political Caucus. She also spent decades advocating for issues including gender equality and abortion rights. She received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Obama in 2013. The DOJ issued a new legal opinion, saying that states that received certain federal welfare and disability funding must require all of their state agencies to report people they know are in the country illegally to DHS. The opinion is based on a federal law

that requires states participating in those benefit programs to share certain immigration status information with the federal government. For nearly three decades, that requirement had been interpreted more narrowly and applied only to the specific state agencies administering those benefits. The DOJ says it applies across state government now and states that fail to comply could risk losing some federal funding. The new interpretation will apply only going forward, not retroactively. Billionaire investor Leon Black has sued the House Oversight Committee asking a federal court to block subpoenas, requiring him to testify and turn over documents as part of the committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Black, who paid Epstein $158 million for financial

and tax-related services, argues the subpoenas go beyond the committee's authority and seek private information unrelated to Epstein. Committee leaders say his testimony and records are important to their investigation and are considering next steps after he skipped a scheduled deposition. Federal prosecutors have charged ICE officer Christian Castro in connection with the January shooting of Julio Caesar Sosa Seles in Minneapolis. Federal authorities initially accused Sosacelis and another man of attacking officers, but those charges were later dropped after video evidence contradicted parts of the officer's account. This is the officer. This is the officer. who also faces separate Minnesota charges of assault and falsely reporting a crime, but has not

yet been extradited from Texas. He was released from a Texas jail last week. We have talked about him over the last few weeks. His federal charges haven't yet been made public, but sources have said he's facing several counts of making false statements. And one of those sources said the DOJ is still considering whether to bring civil rights charges as well. And Representative James Comer says he expects Senator Mitch McConnell to return to the Senate when lawmakers reconvened on September 14th, following a nearly three-month absence. McConnell was hospitalized in June after a fall and a mild case of pneumonia, later underwent rehabilitation and has been recovering at home. He has said he intends to finish his term,

which ends in January. All right, let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll finish with rumor has it and critical thinking. Welcome back. It is time for rumor has it. my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you and do my best to confirm them, dispel them, or add context. Today we have two. First one is this. Rumor has it that a proposed bill would make it easier for companies to add chemicals to our food. Okay, so the social media accounts for impact and environmental working group posted this carousel post saying, quote, a proposed bill would make it easier for companies to add toxic chemicals to food. The fresh act might sound healthy, but actually poses major risks to food safety. And quote. So let's add some

context. First and foremost, this proposal that this post is talking about is the Fresh and Affordable Foods Act. As of now, it's still technically a discussion draft, which means that it hasn't even been formally introduced as a numbered bill yet. With that said, though, I will address each of the four claims that the post makes. So the first claim is, quote, under the Fresh Act, new chemicals can be added to food, even if the FDA doesn't find them safe. The bill reworks the notification process for food chemicals to be considered grass, widening existing loopholes that allow potentially unsafe chemicals into food onto the market with limited government oversight. End quote. This one needs context. It is true that under the proposal, the FDA would not have

to independently review and affirmatively determine that every new grass substance is safe before it could be used. A company would say, submit a notification explaining why it believes the substance is grass, which by the way, grass stands for generally recognized as safe. And unless the FDA steps in within 90 days, that notification would take effect. But that's not a new loophole created by this bill. Under the system we have right now, companies can actually determine on their own that a substance is grass and start using it without notifying the FDA at all. This proposal would actually make notification mandatory for most new grass substances. So saying the proposal widens the

existing loophole is a bit misleading. The proposal certainly doesn't close the loophole because it still doesn't require affirmative FDA approval, but compared with current law, the FDA would actually get more information about potential new grass substances, not less. Second claim, under the Fresh Act, chemicals that were approved as grass decades ago and have not been reassessed for safety by the FDA are essentially grandfathered in, even if new science has emerged or other countries have banned them. The bill also only gives the FDA 90 days to review new notifications. And if the agency doesn't respond within that time frame, the substances will automatically be applied to a grass list, putting potentially unsafe foods on the market without any government review. This one is mostly true,

but it combines two different parts of the bill. So first, substances that were already considered grasp before the new system takes effect would, for the most part, be grandfathered in without the FDA having to independently reassess every one of them beforehand. In fact, substances already listed in the FDA's substances added to food database would basically be treated as though a notification had already been submitted. But the proposal also creates a new FDA program specifically to reassess chemicals that are already in the food supply and requires the FDA to publish an annual list of chemicals prioritized for safety review. So saying these older substances would simply be grandfathered in, regardless of new science, kind of leaves that part of it out.

They could remain on the market without being reassessed first, but the FDA could later review them and restrict them or remove them. And the 90-day part is true for new grass notifications. If the FDA doesn't intervene within 90 days, the notification takes effect and the substance is then added to the public grass registry. Claim three, the Fresh Act would wipe out hundreds of existing state protections, including bans on PFAS in food packaging, artificial dyes in school food, and heavy metals in baby food and infant formula. End quote, this is true.

The bill has an extremely broad preemption provision that says federal standards would override state requirements that are different from federal rules that involve things like food additives, color additives, grass substances, and food contact substances. So states could lose the ability to impose stricter rules in those areas, and that could include laws that involve PFAS in food packaging, food dyes, contaminants in baby food, things like that. Now, exactly which state laws would be preempted would depend on the language of each law and potentially how courts interpret this provision, but the broader claim that the proposal would prevent states from enforcing food chemical standards that are stricter, you know, than the federal standard is true.

And finally, claim four, under the Fresh Act, there are new exemptions that bypass FDA review. So instead of submitting a notice to the FDA, food companies can choose to have their chemicals reviewed by an industry funded panel. If that panel determines ingredients are safe, they can be used in food immediately without FDA review. And quote, this one is mostly true, but there is a correction that we have to address. So the proposal does create a pathway where an FDA accredited outside scientific panel can determine that a substance is grass. And if it does, that determination can take effect immediately without the FDA independently reviewing and approving the substance first.

And one of the panels specifically recognized by the bill, the flavor and extract manufacturers association expert panel, is financially supported by the flavor industry. But it's not quite accurate to say that companies can use this process in. of submitting a notice to the FDA, because the FDA would still have to be notified of the panel's conclusion along with, you know, the identity of the substances and, and how they're going to be used. But the difference is that the FDA wouldn't have to independently review that safety determination before it takes effect. So yes, it is mostly true. That is what you need to know there. But again, keep in mind, this proposal is technically a discussion draft. It has not been formally introduced as a numbered bill, and it's unclear whether it even will be.

All right, second and final, this one was highly requested. Rumor has it that a federal appeals court just ruled that privately possessing AI-generated child sexual abuse material can be constitutionally protected. Now, this one is technically true. There's a lot of context to add, though, so let's do it. This case involves a Wisconsin man named Stephen Anderag, who prosecutors say used an AI image generator called stable diffusion to create sexually explicit images depicting prepubescent children. When investigators eventually searched his devices, they found more than 13,000 AI generated images, many of which prosecutors say depicted children engaged in sexually explicit activity. Now, the most important fact for purposes of this case is that the government

acknowledges that the specific images and a reg was charged over did not depict actual children. They couldn't be linked to any actual children. They were computer generated. So the children in these pictures were not real children. But prosecutors argue that Anderrag did more than just create these images and keep them inside of his house. Okay. So this investigation actually started after Instagram reported that images had been sent to an account belonging to a 15 or 16 year old boy. According to the court record, Anderrag then explained to that boy how he made the pictures that he was sending, which was by using this platform stable diffusion. So Anderag eventually gets charged with four federal crimes.

producing obscene images depicting minors, distributing those images, sending obscene material to someone under the age of 16, and possessing the images inside of his home. Only that last charge, possessing the images inside of his home, has been dismissed, okay? The other three charges are still very much moving forward. So to understand why possession gets treated differently, we have to talk about the area of First Amendment law involving obscenity and child pornography. So obscene material is not considered protected speech under the First Amendment. The government can criminalize things like the production and distribution of obscene material. However, back in 1969, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Stanley v. Georgia that the government cannot punish someone simply for privately possessing obscene material inside his or her home. So basically, even though you don't have a First Amendment right to distribute obscenity, the government.

has a much less power over what you privately possess and look at in your own house. Now, actual child pornography is treated differently because there is a real child who was abused in order to create it. The Supreme Court has said the government can criminalize even the private possession of child pornography because there is an actual victim. The images are a permanent record of the abuse and because continued circulation and possession can continue harming that child. So if Andereg's images had depicted real children, this would be a much different case. Anderag could absolutely be prosecuted simply for possessing them in his home. But according to the government, these images were completely computer generated. No real child was depicted. And that creates a

different legal question because back in 2002, the Supreme Court considered a federal law that tried to ban certain virtual images of children engaged in sexual activity, even when no actual child was involved. And the court struck down parts of that law. The court essentially said, you can't automatically treat a completely virtual image the same way as child pornography involving a real victim, because the reason the government is allowed to ban child pornography is that an actual child was abused to create it. So Congress goes back and they write a narrower law. Instead of banning all virtual images depicting children engaged in sexual activity, Congress said certain virtual depictions can be criminalized if they are legally obscene. And the law specifically says that the minor depicted in the

image does not have to actually exist. So this created a specific federal crime involving obscene virtual depictions of minors, and that is the law prosecutors used to charge anorig with unlawful production and distribution. But the charge we're talking about here was specifically for possession. okay and possession is where the constitutional problem comes in because the government acknowledges that these images did not depict real children it couldn't rely on the special rule that allows the government to criminalize private possession of child pornography right that special rule is to protect the real child who was abused so for this possession charge you are left with someone being prosecuted for privately possessing obscene completely computer generated

material in his home. And Supreme Court precedent says the government cannot punish someone simply for possessing obscene material privately inside his house. So that is why the judge threw out the possession charge. The judge said that because there was no actual child involved, the Supreme Court's protection for for privately possessing obscene material inside the home applied. But the judge did not apply that same protection to everything else that Anderrag allegedly did. Anderag also unsuccessfully tried to get the production charge dismissed. He argued that if he has a constitutional right to possess these images inside his house,

he should also have the right to create the images inside his house. But the judge said no. The judge said the Supreme Court's Stanley ruling is very specifically about possession inside the home. It doesn't give someone a constitutional right to manufacture or produce obscene material just because they happen to be doing it inside their house. So the possession charge was dismissed. but Andereg is still facing the charges for producing the images, distributing them, and sending them. Now, when the judge issued that ruling last year, the DOJ appealed that decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

And last week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with the district court judge. And these are all the headlines you've been seeing. So again, the appeals court was very specific about what it was dealing with, right? It wasn't deciding whether producing, distributing, or sending this material can be illegal. Andereg is still being prosecuted for those things. The question was, can the federal government criminalize someone simply for possessing obscene computer-generated depictions of children inside his home when no actual child is depicted? And under existing Supreme Court precedent, the Seventh Circuit said no. Now, the federal government argued that AI has changed a lot and it changes this whole situation.

And since the Supreme Court decided that virtual child pornography case, and, you know, back in 2002, a lot has changed. And the government cited specific concerns. And the appeals court acknowledged that modern AI can create images that are basically indistinguishable from images involving actual children. The problem is the government made versions of a lot of the same arguments to the Supreme Court in 2002, and the Supreme Court rejected those. So the judge who wrote the appeals court opinion, you know, just last week basically said, look, whether we think those Supreme Court cases make sense in the age of AI or not, we're a lower court. We have to follow the Supreme Court.

He wrote, quote, we have some concerns about the lines these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves, end quote. And interestingly, two of the three judges wrote a separate opinion saying the Supreme Court should probably take another look at this. They pointed out that when the Supreme Court decided that virtual child pornography case in 2002, Two, justices were already predicting that technology could eventually get so advanced that you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between an image that actually involves a real child and one that was just created by the computer. That's essentially where we're at now, right? Now, the judges also raised another really interesting question involving how these AI models are trained.

And we're going to talk about this in the critical thinking segment. Basically, they said because AI models are trained through information that currently lives on the internet, what happens if an AI model is, capable of generating realistic child sexual abuse material because some of the data used to train that model included actual child sexual abuse material because in that case, you do have real victims somewhere in the process, even if the end result is computer generated. So to just wrap everything up, this rumor is true, but hopefully that added context helps you understand what happened here a little bit better. Let's say on this topic, though, we'll finish with critical thinking. How much should the existence of a real victim matter. If the reason actual child pornography can be criminalized,

even in someone's home, is that a real child was abused to create it, should the law treat a completely fake AI image differently, even if the final image looks identical to an image depicting a real child? And in your opinion, how do modern day AI capabilities change things if at all? And then finally, think about the question posed by the appeals court. What if the final, the final, the final, final image is fake, but the AI model learned how to create it using real images. Does that create enough of a connection to a real victim to justify banning it? How direct does the connection have to be before the law should treat the image like actual child pornography? That's what I have for you. Sorry to leave you on such a heavy note. I really don't like doing that, but I really do appreciate

you being here. I hope you have a great weekend. I hope you're able to spend some time with people you love, get outside, do some things you enjoy. I, unfortunately, unfortunately won't be talking to you on Monday, but I will be back with you on Thursday.