National Trust For Historic Preservation In The United States Et Al V. Buttigieg Et Al

This legal case involves several organizations, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Friends of the Frank J. Wood Bridge, Historic Bridge Foundation, and Waterfront Maine, Brunswick, LLC, who are suing several government officials, including Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Shailen Bhatt and Todd Jorgensen, Administrators of the Federal Highway Administration, and Bruce Van Note, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Transportation. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the planning, acquisition of right-of-way, financing, contracting, or construction of a new two-lane bridge carrying US 201 and ME 24 over the Androscoggin River between the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham, Maine. The proposed bridge would replace the historic Frank J. Wood Bridge, which would be demolished following construction of the new bridge. The lawsuit challenges the Section 4(f) Limited Scope Re-evaluation issued by defendant Todd Jorgensen, Division Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. The plaintiffs argue that the decision to reject the rehabilitation of the historic Frank J. Wood Bridge, an alternative that Defendants acknowledge would satisfy the purpose and need for the Bridge Project, on the grounds that rehabilitation would allegedly result in a cost of “extraordinary magnitude” justifying its rejection under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, is based on obsolete and outdated cost information. The plaintiffs also argue that the conclusion that the future cost of rehabilitating the bridge is a cost of “extraordinary magnitude” is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to Section 4(f) and the National Environmental Policy Act. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue that the proposed action will harm their interests in preserving and protecting the historic Bridge and the BTI Historic District. The lawsuit seeks relief to prevent the demolition of the Bridge and require compliance with Section 4(f) and NEPA.

Full Screen

United States of America v. Robert Hunter Biden

Summary: Hunter Biden is currently embroiled in a lawsuit, accused of purchasing a Colt Cobra revolver in October 2018 while allegedly using illegal substances. Despite denying drug use on the necessary paperwork, if found guilty, he could face a maximum of 25 years in prison along with substantial fines. Biden's defense team contends that the charges are politically driven, asserting that Biden's temporary possession of an unloaded firearm did not constitute a public safety risk. They intend to contest the charges, leveraging an agreement with the prosecution, recent federal court decisions, and potential Second Amendment defenses. This case could potentially ignite wider discussions about Second Amendment rights, especially as the Supreme Court is poised to deliberate on a related issue concerning gun ownership for individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Opinions are divided among political and legislative figures, with some speculating that advocates of the Second Amendment might oppose the law that prohibits gun ownership for drug users.