By MARK SHERMAN and KIM CHANDLER

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday struggled over how courts should decide borderline cases of whether convicted murderers are intellectually disabled and should be shielded from execution.

Related Articles

The White House says the midterms are all about Trump. Democrats aren’t so sure

Calibri font becomes the latest DEI target as Rubio orders return to Times New Roman

While scientists race to study spread of measles in US, Kennedy unravels hard-won gains

Georgia election board rejects rule change on using hand-marked paper ballots

Georgia Democrat Eric Gisler claims upset state House win in historically Republican district

There was no clear outcome apparent after the justices heard two hours of arguments in an appeal from Alabama, which wants to put to death a man who lower federal courts found is intellectually disabled.

Joseph Clifton Smith, 55, has been on death row roughly half his life after his conviction for beating a man to death in 1997.

The Supreme Court prohibited execution of intellectually disabled people in a landmark ruling in 2002. The justices, in cases in 2014 and 2017, held that states should consider other evidence of disability in borderline cases because of the margin of error in IQ tests.

The issue in Smith’s case is what happens when a person has multiple IQ scores that are slightly above 70, which has been widely accepted as a marker of intellectual disability. Smith’s five IQ tests produced scores ranging from 72 to 78. Smith had been placed in learning-disabled classes and dropped out of school after seventh grade, his lawyers said. At the time of the crime, he performed math at a kindergarten level, spelled at a third-grade level and read at a fourth-grade level.

Seth Waxman, representing Smith, told the justices his client received a “diagnosis of mental retardation” — then the commonly accepted term for mental disability — in the seventh grade.

Alabama, 20 other states and the Trump administration all are asking the high court, which is more conservative than it was a decade ago, to cut back on those earlier decisions.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented in both cases, and Alito and Thomas sounded as if they would side with Alabama.

A ruling for Smith would lead to messy court fights for other death row inmates “where everything is up for grabs in every case,” Alito said.

Alabama lawyer Robert M. Overing said Smith’s case should be an easy win for the state because Smith never scored below 70 on any IQ test.

“There is no way that he can prove an IQ below 70,” Overing said.

Alabama appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts ruled that Smith is intellectually disabled, looking beyond the test scores. The justices had previously sent his case back to the federal appeals court in Atlanta, where the judges affirmed that they had taken a “holistic” approach to Smith’s case, seemingly in line with high court decisions.

But the justices said in June they would take a new look at the case.

Waxman urged the justices to affirm the lower courts rather than issue a decision that would effectively rely exclusively on test scores and rule out additional evidence in cases with borderline IQ scores.

Justice Elena Kagan said courts have to consider the additional evidence, but “that’s not to say you have to accept it.”

Rights groups focused on disabilities wrote in a brief supporting Smith that “intellectual disability diagnoses based solely on IQ test scores are faulty and invalid.”

Smith was convicted and sentenced to death for the beating death of Durk Van Dam in Mobile County. Van Dam was found dead in his pickup truck. Prosecutors said he had been beaten to death with a hammer and robbed of $150, his boots and tools.

A federal judge in 2021 vacated Smith’s death sentence, though she acknowledged “this is a close case.”

Alabama law defines intellectual disability as an IQ of 70 or below, along with significant or substantial deficits in adaptive behavior and the onset of those issues before the age of 18.

A decision in Hamm v. Smith, 24-872, is expected by early summer.

Chandler reported from Montgomery, Ala.

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

By THALIA BEATY, Associated Press

The billionaire and author MacKenzie Scott revealed $7.1 billion in donations to nonprofits Tuesday, bringing her overall giving since 2019 to $26.3 billion.

Related Articles

Holiday shipping deadlines: When to ship your gifts this year so they arrive on time

Trump’s crackdown on immigration is taking a toll on child care workers

Judge orders Trump to end California National Guard troop deployment in Los Angeles

Wall Street is quiet as it waits for the Federal Reserve’s announcement in the afternoon

Justice Department can unseal records from Epstein’s 2019 sex trafficking case, judge says

Scott first pledged to give away the majority of her wealth in 2019 after her divorce from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Since, she’s distributed large, unrestricted gifts to nonprofits without asking for applications or progress reports. Largely, her giving has focused in the U.S., though not exclusively.

Scott doesn’t have a public foundation and so it’s not easy to independently track her giving. But she’s revealed her gifts in occasional blog posts and essays posted to her website, Yield Giving, which also now includes a database of her grants.

The amount of her annual giving has fluctuated, ranging from a reported $2.1 billion in 2023 to $7.1 billion in 2025.

In 2025, Scott’s gifts showed a particular focus on supporting colleges and universities, especially historically Black and tribal schools, as well as community colleges. She also gave major gifts to organizations focused on mitigating and adapting to climate change.

A new emphasis on climate organizations

When the list of 2025 recipients was published Tuesday, it included a number of significant gifts to climate groups, with the largest — $90 million — going to the collaborative Forests, People, Climate, which focuses on stopping tropical deforestation.

The nonprofit Panorama Global has analyzed Scott’s giving over the years and found that historically, giving to the environment has represented a small part of her overall donations. In 2024, only 9.4% of Scott’s gifts went to environmental groups, though on average the amount of those gifts was larger than to other areas, according to their research.

“What we’re now seeing is different years have different focus areas,” said Gabrielle Fitzgerald, founder and CEO of The Panorama Group. “So last year, there was a really big economic security focus. This year, I really see education and climate.”

Scott’s assets have grown even as she’s given away a fortune

When Scott started detailing her giving in 2020, her fortune was valued around $36 billion, according to Forbes. It’s fluctuated over the years, but today, Forbes estimates her net worth to be $33 billion, even as she’s given away more than $26 billion.

Initially, Scott told grantees not to expect or plan for a second gift, but over time, she has given additional gifts to some of the same organizations, often larger than her original grant.

“She clearly is getting comfortable with reinvesting in partners that she thinks are doing good work,” said Fitzgerald.

At least one organization, CAMFED, which supports girl’s education in African countries, has now received four gifts from Scott, including the largest so far, $60 million, in 2025, according to Scott’s website.

Many generous gifts to minority colleges and universities

In addition to at least $783 million Scott gave to historically Black colleges and universities in 2025, her website details many gifts to tribal colleges, community colleges and scholarship funds.

“It looks like she sees a lot of need, particularly in two areas ensuring people are getting higher education and ensuring that groups are working to protect the climate,” said Fitzgerald.

While Scott has given to higher education since 2020, those gifts have historically been a smaller portion of her education funding. In a 2024 analysis, Panorama Global found nearly 30% of Scott’s education grantees were focused on youth development.

Marybeth Gasman, a professor at Rutgers University and expert on HBCUs, said she noticed that what sets many of the HBCUs who receive Scott’s funding apart from others is steady, consistent leadership and Gasman said, “She’s very interested in institutions that are rooted in community.”

The value of unrestricted grants

Scott does not put any conditions on her donations, allowing recipients to decide how and when to spend the funds. Unrestricted funding is rare from major donors and foundations, with many choosing to support very specific projects over specific timeframes.

However, research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy in 2023 found that concerns about nonprofits misusing Scott’s funds or growing unsustainably have largely not been born out. In part, that may be because Scott’s team researches and vets groups extensively before making donations.

Unrestricted gifts can help nonprofits weather disruptions, test new approaches or technologies or invest in the systems and infrastructure that underpin their work. For example, after the Trump administration cut funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the nonprofit Village Enterprise, which runs antipoverty programs, used a grant it received from Scott in 2023 to keep essential programs running.

Additionally, Scott allows groups the flexibility to decide whether to publicly share how much they’ve received, with more than a third of recipients in 2025 not disclosing the grant amounts in Scott’s grant database. Fitzgerald said altgoether, she thinks Scott tries to not make her giving about herself.

“In her essays, she’s always talking about other stakeholders and other people’s contributions,” Fitzgerald said. “So it’s very different than many other philanthropists who are often the center of the story of their gift.”

Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and non-profits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP’s philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.

“New York City has a long history supporting these types of building conversions, often led by tenants and nonprofit organizations. COPA builds on this legacy and lays groundwork for a new generation of tenant- and community-run housing.”

Councilmembers and COPA supporters at a rally for the bill at City Hall on Nov. 12, 2025. (Gerardo Romo / NYC Council Media Unit)

As real estate attorneys who have spent decades representing clients in affordable housing transactions in New York City, we felt it was important to respond to the concerns raised in Erica Buckley’s op-ed regarding Int. 902-A, the Community Opportunity to Purchase (COPA). 

In our view, the version of COPA now before the Council is a practical, well-crafted framework that will meaningfully strengthen New York City’s ability to preserve stable, affordable housing. 

COPA creates pathways for tenant ownership, as well as preservation of rental apartments, without forcing parties into negotiations. It leverages existing state and local preservation financing programs, such as Neighborhood Pillars and the NYC Acquisition Fund, which are already geared to mission-driven developers. Private lenders, including New York’s expansive network of community development financial institutions, will be at the ready with additional capital to execute COPA purchases. 

We applaud the City Council for taking meaningful steps to restore balance to an affordable housing market that, in our experience, is frequently distorted by speculative pressures. We urge the City Council to pass COPA immediately. 

The legislation would create a proven, common-sense policy that gives mission-driven developers with demonstrated financial capability and track records of success a first opportunity to buy buildings, when a landlord chooses to sell. These prequalified buyers must make competitive offers, which owners are free to reject. 

Where offers are successful, these mission-driven buyers would work with tenants to determine their building’s future—whether that means preserving apartments as permanently affordable rentals or converting them to limited-equity cooperatives.

New York City has a long history supporting these types of building conversions, often led by tenants and nonprofit organizations. COPA builds on this legacy and lays groundwork for a new generation of tenant- and community-run housing.

New York has a robust landscape of housing preservation organizations, ranging from nonprofit community development corporations and community land trusts to M/WBEs and other for-profit developers. Our firms have represented these kinds of organizations in preservation deals for years.

While debates around the housing crisis currently focus on zoning changes to enable new construction, preserving existing affordable housing remains one of the most cost-effective and reliable strategies for keeping low-income New Yorkers securely housed.

Yet in today’s market, responsible purchasers are at a disadvantage when competing with deep-pocketed investors and all-cash buyers who can move quickly and bankroll projects. As a result, most preservation opportunities are lost before responsible buyers even learn a building is for sale.

That’s where COPA comes in. COPA gives carefully vetted nonprofits, as well as for-profit affordable housing developers, something they rarely have today: notice that a building is being sold, a brief window to express interest, and the opportunity to make a competitive, market rate offer. Under COPA, sellers remain free to reject those offers and sell their buildings on the open market.

We know this approach works. San Francisco enacted its COPA law in 2019, and it has quickly become one of the city’s most effective preservation tools—without slowing the market. Today, the city’s real estate market remains among the fastest and most active in the country. 

The City Council’s five years of work designing and refining COPA—based on feedback from New York’s affordable housing community and lessons from San Francisco and other cities—reflects a thoughtful and collaborative process.

Int. 902-A is a balanced bill that focuses on a strategic subset of multifamily buildings where expiring affordability agreements or physical or financial distress expose tenants to heightened risk of harassment or evictions. Notably, small properties—including owner-occupied buildings with five or fewer units—and property owners experiencing hardship are fully exempt from COPA.

It’s a legally-sound and market-compatible policy that will meaningfully advance the city’s affordable housing and preservation goals. The City Council should pass the bill this session.

David Dubrow is senior of counsel at ArentFox Schiff LLP, writing in his individual capacity. Matthew Hall is a senior partner at Goldstein Hall PLLC, writing in his individual capacity.

The post Opinion: The Legal Case for Passing COPA Now appeared first on City Limits.

By JOEY CAPPELLETTI and THOMAS BEAUMONT, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Dallas congresswoman opened her Senate campaign by telling voters that she “has gone toe to toe with Donald Trump.” Her Democratic primary opponent insisted that Americans are tired of “politics as a blood sport.”

The divergent approach highlights how U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett and state Rep. James Talarico are navigating a race where Democrats hope to break a three-decade losing streak in Texas. It also reflects a broader divide within the party, with some candidates continuing to focus on Trump while others barely mention his name.

Figuring out the best approach will be critical for Democrats who are grasping for a path back to power in the 2026 midterm elections that will determine control of Congress and are already maneuvering for the 2028 presidential race.

Republicans, by contrast, have been crystal clear.

Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, said in a recent podcast interview that the Republican president will campaign aggressively next year and the party will “put him on the ballot.”

“He is the greatest vote energizer in the history of politics,” said Neil Newhouse, a veteran Republican pollster. “But the challenge is that he does it as much for Democrats as he does for Republicans.”

Crockett takes on Trump

In her campaign launch video, Crockett was silent as audio of Trump’s insults played, including multiple times that he has called her a “very low-IQ person.” At the end of the video, she breaks out into a smile.

On Monday, she addressed the president more directly.

“Trump, I know you’re watching, so let me tell you directly,” Crockett said. “You’re not entitled to a damn thing in Texas. You better get to work because I’m coming for you.”

Trump responded the next day, telling reporters aboard Air Force One that her candidacy is “a gift to Republicans” and “I can’t even believe she’s a politician, actually.”

For nearly a decade, Democrats have used their criticism of Trump to draw attention and fuel fundraising. Governors who are considered potential 2028 presidential contenders, including California’s Gavin Newsom and Illinois’ JB Pritzker, saw their profiles rise as they positioned themselves as staunch Trump opponents.

U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., recently participated in a video telling service members that they should not follow “illegal orders.” Trump responded by accusing him of “seditious behavior” that’s “punishable by death.”

Kelly started a national media tour and sent out a flurry of fundraising emails, both for himself and other Democrats. He said Trump has bullied everyone in his career, “but not now, because I won’t let it happen.”

When it comes to running for office, “Trump is the red meat that drives donors,” said John Anzalone, a longtime Democratic pollster.

“There are clearly some candidates that are playing towards the donor world that don’t actually make a great argument for winning races. But it’s great for clicks and making money. And money is the first primary that you need to win.”

FILE – Texas Rep. James Talarico speaks at a rally, Saturday, Aug. 16, 2025, at Wrigley Square in Millennium Park in Chicago. (AP Photo/Talia Sprague, file)

Talarico charts a different course

Talarico has built a following with a less combative style. The former schoolteacher who is working toward a master’s degree in divinity at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary gained attention by posting viral social media content challenging Republicans’ claims to Christian values. He has focused less on Trump or other politicians.

“The biggest divide in our country is not left versus right. It’s top versus bottom,” Talarico said in the video launching his campaign.

There are echoes of other Democratic successes this year, such as when candidates for governor won in New Jersey and Virginia by focusing on affordability concerns.

Voters in those states were much likelier to say they were voting to oppose Trump than to support him, according to the AP Voter Poll. For example, 71% of voters for Democrat Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey said their decision in the governor’s race was motivated at least partially by opposition to Trump.

But Sherrill recently said that it is not enough for Democrats to rely solely on anti-Trump fervor.

“Trump makes a difference. He’s a forcing mechanism to coalesce the party,” Sherrill said. “But to really turn out the vote in a really strong manner, you have got to run a really sharp campaign.”

When Democrats talk about Trump, they have to connect his actions to voters’ everyday lives, she said.

“You can’t just say, oh, I’m so upset that Trump demolished the East Wing of the White House,” she said. “You have to say, look, there’s a tariff regime that is being run that is enriching the president to the tune of $3 billion, and you’re paying more for everything from your cup of coffee in the morning to the groceries that you’re buying to cook your family dinner at night.”

It is an approach that could have more staying power in the coming years.

“In the not-too-distant future, Trump will not be on the ballot and that will be a challenge for both parties,” said Austin Cook, a senior aide for Democrat Elissa Slotkin’s successful U.S. Senate campaign in Michigan last year. “He is a starting gun for Democratic enthusiasm. But soon we won’t have him as a foil.”

President Donald Trump gestures after speaking at Mount Airy Casino Resort, Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2025, in Mount Pocono, Pa. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Republicans need Trump to turn out voters

Republicans have little choice but to enlist Trump’s help, considering his enduring support among voters who are less likely to turn out during the midterms.

“They need to energize Republican voters and the only real way to energize Republican voters and get them out to vote is by enlisting Trump in the campaign,” said Newhouse, who is advising some of the party’s U.S. Senate candidates.

He warned that Trump’s popularity does not necessarily transfer to candidates he supports, “but there isn’t an alternative.”

Related Articles

Calibri font becomes the latest DEI target as Rubio orders return to Times New Roman

While scientists race to study spread of measles in US, Kennedy unravels hard-won gains

Georgia election board rejects rule change on using hand-marked paper ballots

Georgia Democrat Eric Gisler claims upset state House win in historically Republican district

Elon Musk says DOGE was only ‘somewhat successful’ and he wouldn’t do it again

“What they are trying to do here is basically wrap themselves up in him, hope that his approval and the economic numbers improve and get their voters out to the polls to match the Democrats’ intensity,” Newhouse said.

The White House has said that Trump will be on the road more in the coming months. He hosted his first rally in a while in Pennsylvania on Tuesday evening, where he blamed Democrats for inflation.

“They gave you high prices,” he said, adding that “we’re bringing those prices down rapidly.”

Beaumont reported from Des Moines, Iowa. Associated Press writer Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix and AP Polling Editor Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux contributed to this report.