Another key member of the Trump White House is leaving his job as the shakeup of his national security team continues.

National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton, one of Trump’s earliest supporters during his run for the presidency, said Sunday he is stepping down to become an author and college lecturer.

“I will be forever grateful to President Trump for the opportunity to serve my country and implement his agenda,” Anton said.

A White House official said the president telephoned Anton to thank him for his service and said he will be missed.

Anton was one of the fiercest defenders of Trump’s “America First” foreign policy and was frequently seen on television engaging in verbal sparring with journalists, and even with fellow conservatives who raised questions about the president’s motives. 

Anton’s departure comes a day before the controversial former U.N. ambassador John Bolton takes over from H.R. McMaster as Trump’s National Security Advisor.
…

Outrage, compassion, a desire for justice: these are some of the motivations of 10 women honored by the U.S. State Department this year with the International Women of Courage Award. Mike O’Sullivan spoke with several recipients at a recent stop in Los Angeles.
…

Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment, a federal judge said in a ruling Friday upholding Massachusetts’ ban on the weapons.

U.S. District Judge William Young dismissed a lawsuit challenging the 20-year-old ban, saying assault weapons are military firearms that fall beyond the reach of the constitutional right to “bear arms.”

Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.

“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens,” Young said. “These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.”

Attorney general praises ruling

State Attorney General Maura Healey said the ruling “vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war.”

“Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools,” Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement. “Families across the country should take heart in this victory.”

AR-15 assault-style rifles are under increased scrutiny because of their use in several recent mass shootings, including the February massacre at a Florida high school that left 17 people dead.

Gun owners’ lawsuit

The Gun Owners Gun Owners’ Action League of Massachusetts and other groups that filed the lawsuit argued that the AR-15 cannot be considered a “military weapon” because it cannot fire in fully automatic mode.

But Young dismissed that argument, noting that the semi-automatic AR-15’s design is based on guns “that were first manufactured for military purposes” and that the AR-15 is “common and well-known in the military.”

“The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,”’ Young wrote.

Young also upheld Healey’s 2016 enforcement notice to gun sellers and manufacturers clarifying what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon under the state’s 1998 assault weapon ban, including copies of the Colt AR-15 and the Kalashnikov AK-47.

State law mirrors federal one

Healey’s stepped-up enforcement followed the shooting rampage at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, that killed 49 patrons. She said at the time that gun manufacturers were circumventing Massachusetts’ ban by selling copycat versions of the weapons they claimed complied with the law.

The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban that expired in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific and name-brand weapons and explicitly bans copies or duplicates of those weapons.

The National Rifle Association panned the ruling and pledged to help the groups fighting the case “in any way possible.”
…

Kansas legislators approved an increase in spending on school funding early Sunday, with Republicans pushing the measure to passage over the bitter objections of some GOP colleagues in hopes of meeting a court mandate.

Dozens of teachers, many wearing red shirts, converged on the Statehouse, camped out for hours and cheered after the Senate approved a bill, 21-19, to phase in a $534 million increase in education funding over five years. The House passed the bill Saturday, 63-56, and GOP Gov. Jeff Colyer endorsed it publicly.

“I am pleased that we were able to compromise and pass a bill that ensures our schools will remain open and are funded adequately and equitably,” Colyer said in a statement.

Court ruling

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled last fall that the state isn’t spending enough money on its public schools. Colyer and some members of the Republican-controlled Legislature worried that a frustrated high court would take the unprecedented step of preventing the state from distributing dollars through a flawed education funding system, effectively closing schools statewide.

Many Democrats had argued that the plan, drafted largely by top House Republicans, would not satisfy the Supreme Court. Most Democrats in the House voted against it.

But the measure had bipartisan support in the Senate. The state’s largest teachers union put aside its own misgivings that the plan was too small and had members pack the Senate gallery and hallways outside the chamber.

“It is certainly the best bill we’ve seen,” said Kansas National Education Association lobbyist Mark Desetti. “It’s time to get something before the court.”

WATCH: Teacher Strikes Spread Across the US

Education underfunded

The Supreme Court declared in October that the state’s current funding of more than $4 billion a year isn’t enough for lawmakers to fulfill their duty under the Kansas Constitution to finance a suitable education for every child. It gave Attorney General Derek Schmidt, a Republican, until April 30 to report on how lawmakers responded.

Lawmakers had been scheduled to start an annual spring break Saturday and return April 26 — four days before Schmidt’s deadline. He and Colyer urged legislators to delay the break until a school funding bill passed.

Senate GOP leaders had excoriated a previous, similarly sized plan from the House as likely to force higher taxes within two years. The Senate approved a plan to phase in a $274 million increase over five years and top Republicans hoped in negotiations to talk the House down from its big plan.

“We know — absolutely know — if we’re going to pay this bill, we’re going to have to increase taxes,” said Senate President Susan Wagle, a conservative Wichita Republican.

Later, she said, “I’m here for the people who are footing the bill.”

Colyer argued in a statement Saturday that the new plan could be sustained without increasing taxes. Supporters believe the annual growth in tax revenues will cover the new spending.

The House and Senate had passed rival plans earlier in the week. Their negotiators made little progress Friday on how much school spending should increase.

Besides objecting to the level of spending, some conservative Republicans said the court is improperly encroaching on the Legislature’s power to determine the state budget.

Conservative GOP Rep. Randy Garber, of Sabetha, argued that problems with public education stem from U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the early 1960s declaring school-sponsored prayer and Bible reading as unconstitutional.

“If we don’t fix society, we won’t fix our schools,” Garber said in concluding a 13-minute speech. “I say the way to fix our schools is to put prayer and the Bible back and give it a chance.”
…

Mark Zuckerberg has apologized for what he calls a “breach of trust” regarding the exploitation of as many as 87 million users’ data by Cambridge Analytica. Questions are swirling in Washington as the CEO of Facebook prepares to testify before Congress. But, whether the hearings will bring about real change around privacy rights remains to be seen. Tina Trinh reports.
…

Following the success of West Virginia teachers in securing a pay raise, educators in Oklahoma and Kentucky are walking out of their classrooms, demanding that lawmakers increase education spending in their states. Arizona teachers may soon follow suit. From Washington, VOA’s Jill Craig has more.
…

The White House has announced sanctions against 38 Russian individuals and companies, saying it is standing up to ongoing “malign activity” by the Russian government against Western democracies in Crimea, Ukraine, Syria and around the world. Russia denies any wrongdoing. VOA Diplomatic Correspondent Cindy Saine reports from Washington on a move that may deepen the divide between Washington and Moscow.
…

A South Carolina congressman pulled out his own loaded handgun during a meeting with constituents Friday to make a point that guns are dangerous only in the hands of criminals.

Republican U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman placed the .38-caliber gun on a table during the “coffee with constituents” meeting at a Rock Hill restaurant, news outlets reported.

“I’m not going to be a Gabby Giffords,” Norman said, referring to the former Arizona congresswoman who was shot outside a grocery store during a constituent gathering in 2011.

Giffords’ husband, retired NASA astronaut Mark Kelly, said in a statement that Norman is “no Gabby Giffords” and noted that his wife has dedicated her life to ending gun violence.

“Americans are increasingly faced with a stark choice: leaders like Gabby, who work hard together to find solutions to problems, or extremists like the NRA and Congressman Norman, who rely on intimidation tactics and perpetuating fear,” Kelly said.

Norman said he’ll display his gun at future constituent meetings.

“I’m tired of these liberals jumping on the guns themselves as if they are the cause of the problem,” Norman told The Post and Courier. “Guns are not the problem.”

School teacher Lori Carter of Charlotte, North Carolina, said she thought the move was contradictory because Norman didn’t know if someone there had mental health issues.

“What was to prevent me from leaning across the table to take that gun?” she said.

This story was written by the Associated Press.
…

Muslim-American advocacy organizations are hailing a legal settlement with New York City police over the department’s surveillance of the community, saying the agreement sends a message that simply being Muslim is not a crime.

The settlement, announced Thursday by lawyers for New York City, the New York Police Department and the Muslim community, resolves a 2012 lawsuit brought by Muslim groups. The suit challenged the lawfulness of a program New York police created after the attacks of September 11, 2001, to gather intelligence on Muslims.

Under the terms of the settlement, the New York Police Department confirmed that it has dismantled the unit responsible for carrying out the intelligence-gathering operation and agreed not to conduct suspicionless surveillance based on religion or ethnicity.

Victory for American Muslims

Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, a legal advocacy organization that initially filed the lawsuit, hailed the settlement as a victory for American Muslims.

“Today’s settlement sends a message to all law enforcement: Simply being Muslim is not a basis for surveillance,” Khera said during a press call with reporters.

Omar Farah, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, a progressive legal advocacy organization that later joined the lawsuit, agreed that the settlement bears the same message.

“Attempting to predict criminality on the basis of race or religion is repugnant and it never works — except to humiliate and criminalize targeted communities,” Farah said.

​Years of spying, not one lead

Muslim Advocates filed the lawsuit after the Associated Press revealed in a series of investigative reports in 2011 and 2012 how the New York Police Department infiltrated Muslim groups and put informants in mosques in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

As part of the counterterror program, the police monitored at least 20 mosques, 14 restaurants, 11 retail stores, two grade schools and two Muslim student associations in New Jersey, Khera said.

The monitoring included video surveillance of mosques, photographing of license plates, community mapping, and infiltration of mosques, student associations and businesses, she said.

Khera said the surveillance did not produce a single investigative lead.

“This was not lawful policing but just blatant discrimination against innocent Americans,” she said.

The settlement came after an appeals court in 2015 struck down a lower court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit, prompting New York City to initiate talks with the plaintiffs.

Farhaj Hassan, a U.S. Army reservist and the lead plaintiff in the case, said the settlement was a victory for the United States.

“We believe the legal rulings and settlement in this case will endure as part of a broader effort to hold this country to account for its stated commitment and its obligation to uphold religious liberty and equality,” Hassan said.

This story was written by VOA’s Masood Farivar.
…

The U.S. Justice Department said Friday it might formally enter a lawsuit accusing Harvard University of discriminating against Asian-American applicants as the agency probes its admissions policies for potential civil rights violations.

The department disclosed its plan in a brief urging a federal judge in Boston to not allow the Ivy League school to file pretrial court papers and documents provisionally under seal.

Harvard had cited the need to protect the privacy of applicants and students as well as the inner workings of its admissions process, arguing that various documents should be initially filed under seal pending the judge’s review.

Privacy protections

The Justice Department said it opposed Harvard’s request, joining Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), the group behind the case, which has urged the disclosure of “powerful” evidence showing Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Harvard is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

“Harvard College is responsible for protecting the confidential and highly sensitive personal information that prospective students — none of whom asked to be involved in this dispute — entrust to us every year in their applications,” Harvard spokeswoman Rachael Dane said in a statement.

“We are committed to safeguarding their privacy while also ensuring that the public has the access that it is entitled to under the law,” Dane said.

William Consovoy, a lawyer for SFFA, declined to comment.

Supreme Court ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled universities may use affirmative action to help minority applicants get into college. Conservatives have said such programs can hurt white people and Asian-Americans.

The Justice Department under Republican President Donald Trump has been investigating a complaint by more than 60 Asian-American organizations which say Harvard’s policies are discriminatory because they limit the acceptance of Asian-Americans.

“The public funds Harvard at a cost of millions of dollars each year, and thus has a paramount interest in any proof of these allegations, Harvard’s responses to them, and the Court’s resolution of this dispute,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in Friday’s filing.

The department said that while it had obtained much of the case’s evidence through its own separate probe, it wanted to review the court records as it considers whether to file a “statement of interest” arguing a position in the case. A hearing before U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs is scheduled for Tuesday.

Harvard says its admissions policies comply with U.S. laws and that it has worked to increase the financial aid it offers to ensure economic, as well as racial, diversity in its classes.

 
…

Republican U.S. Representative Blake Farenthold of Texas, accused by a female former aide of sexual harassment, abruptly resigned from Congress on Friday after admitting to allowing an unprofessional culture to flourish in his Capitol Hill office.

“While I planned on serving out the remainder of my term in Congress, I know in my heart it’s time for me to move along and look for new ways to serve,” the 56-year-old congressman who represented Corpus Christi in the U.S. House of Representatives said in a social media video statement.

Former radio show host

While Farenthold has denied the sexual harassment accusation, the former conservative radio show host said in December he would not seek re-election. He made that announcement a week after the House ethics committee said it was investigating him over allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation involving a female former staff member.

“I had no idea how to run a congressional office, and as a result, I allowed a workplace culture to take root in my office that was too permissive and decidedly unprofessional,” Farenthold said in December.

The ethics committee said it was also looking into whether Farenthold had made inappropriate statements to other members of his staff.

His resignation took effect on Friday afternoon. Farenthold, who began serving in Congress in 2011, is the latest of several U.S. lawmakers who have stepped down or not sought re-election after being accused of sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment claim settled

Politico reported in December that the congressional Office of Compliance had paid $84,000 from a public fund on behalf of Farenthold for a sexual harassment claim.

In 2014, his former communications director, Lauren Greene, filed a lawsuit accusing him of creating a hostile work environment, gender discrimination and retaliation, court documents showed. 

The two reached a confidential mediated agreement in 2015, according to a statement from Farenthold’s office that denied any wrongdoing by him.

Reuters has been unable to verify the allegations against Farenthold.

This story was written by Reuters.
…