By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a fight over plans to store nuclear waste at sites in rural Texas and New Mexico.

Related Articles

Divided Supreme Court reinstates order requiring Trump administration to release frozen foreign aid

Eyeing a friendly Supreme Court, Republicans push for the Ten Commandments in schools

Supreme Court seems likely to block Mexico’s $10 billion lawsuit against US gun makers

Supreme Court won’t hear a challenge to college programs for reporting bias allegations

Supreme Court seems likely to rule for Ohio woman claiming job bias because she’s straight

President Joe Biden’s administration and a private company with a license for the Texas facility appealed a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission exceeded its authority in granting the license. The outcome of the case will affect plans for a similar facility in New Mexico roughly 40 miles (65 kilometers) away.

On this issue, President Donald Trump’s administration is sticking with the views of its predecessor, even with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican ally of Trump, on the other side.

The push for temporary storage sites is part of the complicated politics of the nation’s so far futile quest for a permanent underground storage facility.

Here’s what to know about the case:

Where is spent nuclear fuel stored now?

Roughly 100,000 tons (90,000 metric tons) of spent fuel, some of it dating from the 1980s, is piling up at current and former nuclear plant sites nationwide and growing by more than 2,000 tons (1,800 metric tons) a year. The waste was meant to be kept there temporarily before being deposited deep underground.

A plan to build a national storage facility northwest of Las Vegas at Yucca Mountain has been mothballed because of staunch opposition from most Nevada residents and officials.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said that the temporary storage sites are needed because existing nuclear plants are running out of room. The presence of the spent fuel also complicates plans to decommission some plants, the Justice Department said in court papers.

Where would it go?

The NRC granted the Texas license to Interim Storage Partners LLC for a facility that could take up to 5,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel rods from power plants and 231 million tons of other radioactive waste. The facility would be built next to an existing dump site in Andrews County for low-level waste such as protective clothing and other material that has been exposed to radioactivity. The Andrews County site is about 350 miles (560 kilometers) west of Dallas, near the Texas-New Mexico state line.

The New Mexico facility would be in Lea County, in the southeastern part of the state near Carlsbad. The NRC gave a license for the site to Holtec International.

The licenses would allow for 40 years of storage, although opponents contend the facilities would be open indefinitely because of the impasse over permanent storage.

Political opposition is bipartisan

Republicans and Democrats, environmental groups and the oil and gas industry all oppose the temporary sites.

Abbott is leading Texas’ opposition to the storage facility. New Mexico Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham also is opposed to the facility planned for her state.

A brief led by Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on behalf of several lawmakers calls the nuclear waste contemplated for the two facilities an “enticing target for terrorists” and argues it’s too risky to build the facility atop the Permian Basin, the giant oil and natural gas region that straddles Texas and New Mexico.

Elected leaders of communities on the routes the spent fuel likely would take to New Mexico and Texas also are opposed.

What are the issues before the court?

The justices will consider whether, as the NRC argues, the states forfeited their right to object to the licensing decisions because they declined to join in the commission’s proceedings.

Two other federal appeals courts, in Denver and Washington, that weighed the same issue ruled for the agency. Only the 5th Circuit allowed the cases to proceed.

The second issue is whether federal law allows the commission to license temporary storage sites. Opponents are relying on a 2022 Supreme Court decision that held that Congress must act with specificity when it wants to give an agency the authority to regulate on an issue of major national significance. In ruling for Texas, the 5th Circuit agreed that what to do with the nation’s nuclear waste is the sort of “major question” that Congress must speak to directly.

But the Justice Department has argued that the commission has long-standing authority to deal with nuclear waste reaching back to the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.

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

By DAVID KLEPPER and DARLENE SUPERVILLE

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. has paused its intelligence sharing with Ukraine, cutting off the flow of vital information that has helped the war-torn nation target Russian invaders, but Trump administration officials said Wednesday that positive talks between Washington and Kyiv mean it may only be a short suspension.

Information about Russia’s intentions and military movements has been critical to Ukraine’s defense and a strong indication of support from the U.S. and other Western allies. The suspension comes after Trump paused military aid to Ukraine and is another sign of how he has transformed America’s relationship with close allies.

“We have taken a step back and are pausing and reviewing all aspects of this relationship,” national security adviser Mike Waltz said Wednesday.

Comments from top Trump administration officials suggest the decision is part of the broader negotiations between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to negotiate a peace deal with Russia, and that intelligence could begin flowing to Ukraine again soon.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe called the suspension a “pause” and said it came after the disastrous meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy in the Oval Office last week. Ratcliffe said Trump wanted to know that Zelenskyy was serious about peace.

“On the military front and the intelligence front, the pause that allowed that to happen will go away, and I think we’ll work shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine as we have,” Ratcliffe said.

U.S. intelligence assistance is vital for Ukraine to track Russian troop movements and select targets. Ukrainians use the information when operating U.S.-supplied High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, and the U.S. Army Tactical Missile System, known as ATACMS.

Intelligence from the U.S. and other allies also helps Ukraine prepare for Russian attacks, and supplied critical information in the war’s early days that allowed Ukraine to thwart Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hopes for a quick victory.

The CIA declined to respond to questions about the change in intelligence sharing.

Ukraine could soon be receiving intelligence from the U.S. once Zelenskyy shows to Trump he is serious about participating in talks on Trump’s terms, Waltz said on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends.”

“I think if we can nail down these negotiations and move towards these negotiations and, in fact, put some confidence building measures on the table, then the president will take a hard look at lifting this pause,” he said. “We have to know that both sides are sincerely negotiating towards a partial, then permanent, peace.”

Related Articles

Trump administration plans to cut 80,000 employees from Veterans Affairs, according to internal memo

Trump administration moves to drop Idaho emergency abortion case with national implications

US Rep. and former Houston mayor Sylvester Turner dies at 70

Vance will visit the US-Mexico border to highlight the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown

Divided Supreme Court reinstates order requiring Trump administration to release frozen foreign aid

The moves by the new administration have dismayed leaders in Europe and Democrats in Washington, who say Trump is depriving a key American ally of assistance they need to fight Russia.

The flow of information to Ukraine has saved lives, U.S. Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Wednesday.

“The idea that we will now withhold life-saving intelligence from Ukrainians who are fighting and dying is unforgivable,” Himes said.

Officials in Ukraine declined to comment Wednesday on the country’s intelligence sharing relationship with Washington. CIA officials also declined to respond to questions.

It’s unclear whether the American suspension affects the intelligence sharing ties between Ukraine and other Western powers, including four of the Five Eyes, an intelligence sharing coalition of the U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia and New Zealand.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesman, Dave Pares, would not confirm whether the U.K. is still supplying Ukraine with intelligence from the United States.

He said Britain was “will do everything to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position across all aspects of our support, particularly around defense and security, and our position hasn’t changed.”

Associated Press writers Jill Lawless in London, Barry Hatton in Lisbon, Portugal and Illia Novikov in Kyiv contributed to this report.

By LORNE COOK and RAF CASERT

BRUSSELS (AP) — European Union leaders plan to hold emergency talks on Thursday to agree ways to quickly increase their military budgets after the Trump administration signaled that Europe must take care of its own security and also suspended assistance to Ukraine.

Related Articles

US charges Chinese hackers, government officials in broad cyberespionage campaign

Trudeau not willing to lift Canada’s retaliatory tariffs if Trump leaves some tariffs on Canada

Panama president calls Trump’s talk of ‘reclaiming’ the Panama Canal a lie

Trump administration signals that the tariffs against Canada and Mexico may soon have exemptions

Catholic Church opens Lent season with words of solidarity for pope sidelined with pneumonia

In just over a month, President Donald Trump has overturned old certainties about U.S. reliability as a security partner, as he embraces Russia and withdraws American support for Ukraine.

On Monday, Trump ordered a pause to U.S. military supplies to Ukraine as he sought to press President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to engage in negotiations to end the war with Russia, bringing fresh urgency to the EU summit in Brussels.

“Europe faces a clear and present danger on a scale that none of us have seen in our adult lifetime. Some of our fundamental assumptions are being undermined to their very core,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned in a letter to the EU’s 27 leaders, who will consider ways to access more money for defense spending and ease restrictions on it.

But perhaps the biggest challenge for the EU on Thursday will be to take a united stance at a moment when it’s fractured, since much of what the bloc does requires unanimous support.

Focus is Europe’s security

Whatever happens, the meeting is not expected to address Ukraine’s most pressing needs.

It is not aimed at urgently drumming up more arms and ammunition to fill any supply vacuum created by the U.S. freeze. Nor will it unblock the estimated 183 billion euros ($196 billion) in frozen Russian assets held in a Belgian clearing house, a pot of ready cash that could be seized.

Ukraine’s armed forces, meanwhile, are still battling to slow Russia’s advances along the 1,000-kilometer (600-mile) front line, especially in the eastern Donetsk region. Tens of thousands of soldiers and more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed.

The focus of Thursday’s summit will be finances, and how to set the EU up as quickly as possible to provide for its own security, and help Ukraine, while breaking with decades of dependence on the U.S. defense umbrella.

“In view of the increasing threat situation, it is clear to us that Europe … must now very quickly make very big efforts, very quickly, to strengthen the defense capability of our country and the European continent,” Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said Tuesday.

The prospective partners in Germany’s next government are seeking to loosen the nation’s rules on running up debt to allow for higher defense spending.

A call for Europe to increase its defense spending

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte — who fears that Russia’s armed forces might be capable of launching an attack on another European country by the end of the decade — has warned that U.S. allies will have to spend more than 3% of gross domestic product on their military budgets.

The Trump administration is demanding that the Europeans spend as much as 5%, well beyond the NATO benchmark of at least 2%. Seven European allies still fall short of even that target. The U.S. spends around 3.4%, according to NATO figures, and a Pentagon audit that could reduce that is pending.

Related Articles

Trump administration pauses flow of intelligence to Ukraine that helps on battlefield

Trump administration plans to cut 80,000 employees from Veterans Affairs, according to internal memo

Trump administration moves to drop Idaho emergency abortion case with national implications

Trudeau not willing to lift Canada’s retaliatory tariffs if Trump leaves some tariffs on Canada

Panama president calls Trump’s talk of ‘reclaiming’ the Panama Canal a lie

Von der Leyen has proposed that the EU’s executive branch, the European Commission, raise up to 150 billion euros ($161 billion) on financial markets that would be loaned to member countries buy new military equipment for themselves, or to send to Ukraine.

The commission would also aim to free up funds from other sectors of the bloc’s massive long-term budget and to relax its stringent debt rules so that each country could invest up to 1.5% more of their GDP on defense, should they want to.

The leaders will also discuss whether to place more arms contracts with Ukraine’s defense industry, and to help integrate it into the European industrial network. Production costs in Ukraine are much lower, providing a relatively fast way to supply more arms and ammunition.

It’s an approach that Zelenskyy has praised.

“Last year alone, thanks to Ukrainian and partner efforts, we produced over 1.5 million drones of various types. Ukraine is now the world leader in drone warfare. This is our success. But it’s also your success,” he said earlier this month at the Munich Security Conference.

Possible EU support for a future force to police any peace agreement in Ukraine will also be weighed. Britain and France are leading that effort, which could involve several other European countries.

EU faces major challenges

The summit comes as the EU is arguably at its weakest point, fragmented by the steady rise of a hard right that is often pro-Russian.

Hungary and Slovakia have routinely undermined support for Ukraine. Hungary is threatening to veto a joint statement drafted for Thursday’s summit but would not be able to block any major security or financing decisions.

Meanwhile, many larger countries face uncertainties at home. Germany will soon have a new chancellor, but France’s latest government is fragile, and Spain relies on small parties to keep its coalition intact.

Poland offers strong leadership under Prime Minister Donald Tusk, however a presidential election looms and a right-wing candidate is well placed. The Dutch cabinet dominated by hard-right leader Geert Wilders is shaky.

By GENE JOHNSON

It was a punishment for mutiny in colonial times, a way to discourage desertion during the Civil War and a dose of frontier justice in the Old West. In modern times, some consider it a more humane alternative to lethal injection. The firing squad has a long and thorny history in the U.S.

South Carolina on Friday is scheduled to put the first person to death by firing squad in the U.S. in 15 years. Brad Sigmon, who was convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend’s parents in 2001, chose it over the two other methods in South Carolina — the electric chair and lethal injection.

Since 1608, at least 144 civilian prisoners have been executed by shooting in America, nearly all in Utah. Only three have occurred since 1977, when the use of capital punishment resumed after a 10-year pause. The first of those, Gary Gilmore, caused a media sensation in part because he waived his appeals and volunteered to be executed. When asked for his last words, Gilmore replied, “Let’s do it.”

Five states — Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah — authorize the use of firing squads in certain circumstances.

Here’s a look at the history behind the death penalty method.

1608-1865: Jamestown, George Washington and the Civil War

The earliest recorded execution by shooting came in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1608. Capt. George Kendall came to be suspected of mutiny — and possibly of conspiring with Spain. Centuries later, in 1996, archaeologists discovered a bullet-ridden body buried in the fort’s walls that many suspect was Kendall.

In the American Revolution, public executions by firing squad were sometimes used to punish desertion.

In 1776, then-Gen. George Washington spared a Connecticut soldier, Ebenezer Leffingwell, who was sentenced to die after fighting with a superior, the Journal of the American Revolution recounted. Leffingwell had been bound, blindfolded and forced to kneel in front of a crowd when a chaplain involved in the proceedings announced he would live.

Mark Smith, a history professor at the University of South Carolina, said firing squads were used — not often — by both sides during the Civil War to create a “public spectacle, a vision of terror” to keep soldiers in line.

“A man could be sitting on his own coffin at times or blindfolded, shot by six or seven men, one of whom has a blank,” the professor said. “These were gatherings designed to shock and it worked.”

At least 185 men were executed by firing squad during the Civil War, according to Christopher Q. Cutler in a Cleveland State Law Review article.

1860s to 1915: Executions in the Old West

Firing squads were primarily used only in Utah, where the lawmakers in 1851 designated three possible punishments for murder: shooting, hanging or beheading. The first firing squad execution was carried out in a courthouse enclosure, disappointing a crowd waiting outside to see it.

Only one other state since 1900 has executed someone by shooting: Nevada, which in 1913 built a contraption that fired three guns by pulling strings because it had trouble finding volunteers to serve on a firing squad.

An 1877 sentencing in Utah gave rise to the first U.S. Supreme Court case challenging a specific execution method. Wallace Wilkerson, who shot a man to death during a heated game of cribbage, challenged authorities’ plans to kill him by firing squad. The court declined his appeal, finding that unlike some other bygone methods — drawing and quartering, for example — execution by firing squad would not bring the sort of “terror, pain and disgrace” that would violate the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

As it turned out, Wilkerson’s killing was botched, Cutler noted: Reportedly intoxicated and smoking a cigar, he moved slightly just before the executioners shot. Badly wounded, he fell to the ground, saying, “My God! They’ve missed it.” It took him an agonizing 15 minutes to die.

Among other famous firing squad executions in Utah was the 1915 death of labor activist and songwriter Joe Hill, who until the end insisted on his innocence in the murder of a grocer and his son.

Modern times: lethal injections vs firing squads

One of the reasons firing squads did not gain much use beyond Utah was that people viewed them as barbaric, according to Deborah Denno, a criminologist at Fordham School of Law.

The bloody reality of those killings, as well as botched hangings and electrocutions, which sometimes led people to struggle and suffer, prompted states in the early 1980s to begin turning to lethal injection, a procedure viewed — at least initially — as more humane.

But since then, lethal injection has become the most commonly botched execution method, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. States have struggled to obtain the required drugs, and some have taken another look at firing squads — an old but largely reliable method. Lawmakers in Idaho are considering a bill that would make firing squads the primary method of execution there.

Two people now on Utah’s death row have requested firing squads.

Denno urged policymakers to reconsider firing squads in a 2016 law review article. Among those who have expressed similar views is Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote in a 2017 dissent that “in addition to being near instant, death by shooting may also be comparatively painless.”

“Lethal injection has only gotten worse over the decades,” Denno told The Associated Press in an interview. “The firing squad really stands out as a relatively decent method of execution.”

In the annals of executions in the U.S., she said, there have been just two botched firing squad executions: Wilkerson’s and that of Eliseo Mares in Utah in 1951. It’s not clear what happened in Mares’ case, but reports surfaced decades later that the executioners disliked him and intentionally missed his heart to prolong his suffering.

With greater oversight and expert shooters, those problems wouldn’t be repeated today, Denno said.

In South Carolina, Sigmon, 67, chose to die by firing squad because the alternatives seemed worse, his attorney Gerald “Bo” King wrote in a statement.

Some aspects of his execution are modern — for example, bullets are deadlier and guns are now more precise.

But much of it would have been familiar in Utah more than a century ago: A hooded inmate with a target over his heart is bound to a chair in a death chamber and may say his final words. Nearby, volunteer officers await the order to fire.

Associated Press reporters Ed White in Detroit; Matthew Brown in Billings, Montana; and Rebecca Boone in Boise, Idaho, contributed.