ATLANTA (AP) — An appeals court in Georgia agreed Wednesday to review a lower court’s ruling allowing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to proceed pursuing an election interference case she brought against former President Donald Trump.

Trump and a number of other other defendants within the case tried to remove Willis and her office from the case, claiming that her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade created a conflict of interest. Supreme Court Justice Scott McAfee said in March that there was no conflict of interest that might force Willis to withdraw from the case, but he granted Trump and the opposite defendants’ request to appeal his ruling to the Georgia Court of Appeals.

On Wednesday, the intermediate appellate court agreed to take up the case. Once the ruling is issued, the losing party may ask the Supreme Court of Georgia to hear an appeal.

Trump’s lead lawyer in Georgia, Steve Sadow, said in an email that the previous president looked forward to presenting arguments to the appeals court explaining why the case needs to be dismissed and why Willis “should be disqualified for her misconduct in this unwarranted, unwarranted political persecution.”

A spokesman for Willis declined to comment on the Court of Appeal’s decision to take up the case.

The appeals court’s decision to hear the case appears likely to delay the case and further reduce the likelihood that it’s going to go to trial before the November general election, when Trump is anticipated to be the Republican Party’s presidential nominee.

In his order, McAfee said he plans to proceed to hear other pretrial motions “regardless of whether the petition is granted… and even if the appellate court advances any subsequent appeals.” Trump and others, nevertheless, could ask the Court of Appeals to put the case on hold until an appeal is heard.

Featured Stories

McAfee wrote in his March order that the charge “was burdened with an appearance of impropriety.” He said Willis would only be allowed to proceed working on the case if Wade left, and the special prosecutor resigned a number of hours later.

Allegations that Willis improperly profited from her affair with Wade led to tumultuous months within the case as intimate details of Willis and Wade’s personal lives emerged in court in mid-February. Serious charges in certainly one of 4 criminal cases against the previous Republican president were largely overshadowed by prosecutors’ love lives.

In August, Trump and 18 others were indicted on charges of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to make up for his narrow 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden in Georgia.

All defendants were charged with violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law, or RICO, an expansive anti-racketeering statute. Four people charged within the case pleaded guilty after reaching an agreement with prosecutors. Trump and others have pleaded not guilty.

Trump and the opposite defendants argued of their appeal motion that McAfee was mistaken not to remove each Willis and Wade, writing that “providing District Attorney Willis with the choice to simply remove Wade disrupts logic and is contrary to state law Georgia.”

The allegations against Willis first surfaced in a motion filed in early January by Ashleigh Merchant, a lawyer for former Trump campaign staffer and former White House adviser Michael Roman. The motion alleged that Willis and Wade were involved in an inappropriate romantic relationship and that Willis paid Wade large sums for his work after which profited by paying for lavish vacations.

Willis and Wade confirmed the connection, but said they didn’t start dating until spring 2022, when Wade was hired in November 2021, and their romance ended last summer. They also testified that they split travel expenses roughly equally, with Willis often covering expenses or reimbursing Wade in money.

WASHINGTON (AP) – The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is moving toward reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. The Justice Department’s proposal would recognize the medical uses of cannabis but wouldn’t legalize it for recreational use.

The proposal would move marijuana from “Schedule I” to the less tightly regulated “Schedule III.”

So what does this mean and what are its consequences?

What actually modified? What happens next?

Technically nothing yet. The proposal should be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget after which subjected to public discussion and review by an administrative judge, a potentially lengthy process.

Still, the shift is taken into account a “paradigm shift and is very exciting,” Vince Sliwoski, a cannabis and psychedelics lawyer in Portland, Oregon, who runs outstanding legal blogs on these topics, told The Associated Press when the federal Health and Wellness Commission Department of Social Services advisable the change.

“I can’t emphasize enough how important this news is,” he said.

This got here after President Joe Biden last 12 months asked each HHS and the attorney general, which oversees the DEA, to review marijuana classification. Schedule Legally, I put it on par with heroin, LSD, quaalude, and ecstasy, amongst others.

Biden, a Democrat, supports legalizing medical marijuana for use “where appropriate, consistent with medical and scientific evidence,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday. “That is why it is important that this independent review passes.”

If marijuana is reclassified, will it legalize recreational marijuana nationwide?

NO. Schedule III drugs – which include ketamine, anabolic steroids and a few combos of acetaminophen and codeine – are still controlled substances.

They are subject to varied laws that allow for certain medical uses and federal criminal prosecution of anyone who deals drugs and not using a license.

No changes are expected to medical marijuana programs currently licensed in 38 states or to legal recreational marijuana markets in 23 states, but they’re unlikely to satisfy federal requirements for production, recordkeeping, prescribing and other requirements for Scheduled drugs III.

There have not been many federal prosecutions for easy marijuana possession in recent times, even under marijuana’s current Schedule I status, but the reclassification would don’t have any direct impact on people already involved in the criminal justice system.

“Put simply, this move from Schedule I to Schedule III is not going to get people out of jail,” said David Culver, senior vp of public affairs at the U.S. Cannabis Board.

Featured Stories

However, the rescheduling itself would have some impact, particularly on research and marijuana taxes.

What would this mean for research?

Because marijuana is a Schedule I drug, it has been very difficult to conduct authorized clinical trials involving the administration of the drug. This has created something of a catch-22: requiring further research, but making it harder. (Researchers sometimes depend on people’s own reports of marijuana use.)

Schedule III drugs are easier to check, although changing the classification won’t immediately reverse all barriers to testing, Culver said.

What about taxes (and banking)?

Under the federal tax code, businesses that “trade” marijuana or another Schedule I or II drug cannot deduct rent, payroll, or various other expenses that other businesses can write off. (Yes, a minimum of some cannabis businesses, especially state-licensed ones, pay taxes to the federal government despite its marijuana prohibition). Industry groups say the tax rate often tops out at 70% or higher.

The deduction rule doesn’t apply to Schedule III drugs, so the proposed change would significantly reduce taxes on cannabis firms.

They say it might treat them like other industries and help them compete with illegal competitors that frustrate licensees and officials in places like New York.

“That’s how you strengthen these state legal programs,” says Adam Goers, director of medical and recreational marijuana giant Columbia Care. He co-leads a coalition of corporations and other players that’s pushing for the schedule change.

It could also mean more promotion and promoting of cannabis if those costs could possibly be deducted, based on Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Center.

The rescheduling would don’t have any direct impact on one other marijuana business issue: difficulty accessing banks, particularly for loans, as federally regulated institutions fear the drug’s legal status. Instead, the industry sought a measure called the SAFE Banking Act. It passed the House multiple times but stalled in the Senate.

Are there critics? What are they saying?

They do exist, including the national anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana. President Kevin Sabet, a former Obama administration drug policy official, said the HHS suggestion “contradicts science, reeks of politics” and is a regrettable nod to an industry “desperate for legitimacy.”

Some legalization advocates say the marijuana reschedule is just too gradual. They wish to deal with removing it completely from the list of controlled substances, which doesn’t include items like alcohol or tobacco (they’re regulated, but they usually are not the same).

Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Marijuana Law Reform Organization, said simply reclassifying marijuana would “perpetuate the existing divide between state and federal marijuana policy.” Minority Cannabis Business Association President Kaliko Castille said she would only postpone the “rebranding ban,” relatively than giving full clarity to state licensees and definitively ending a long time of arrests that disproportionately attracted people of color.

“Schedule III will leave it in this amorphous, dirty middle where people won’t understand the danger that it will still be illegal at the federal level,” he said.

The family of a black teenager who was shot by a white homeowner when he mistakenly went to the wrong address in Kansas City, Missouri, filed a lawsuit on Monday that the family’s lawyer described as an try to pressure a criminal trial later this 12 months.

The grievance, filed by Cleo Nagbe on behalf of her son Ralph Yarl, alleges that 84-year-old Andrew Lester was negligent when he shot the 16-year-old abruptly greater than a 12 months ago on April 13. suffered and sustained everlasting injuries, pain and suffering as a direct result of Lester’s actions.

Lee Merritt, the family’s attorney, said the civil suit is intended to “give the family a chance to take the reins in seeking justice for Ralph” as the state’s criminal case against Lester unfolds.

Lester pleaded not guilty in September 2023. The trial was scheduled to start over a 12 months later, on October 7, 2024.

Lester’s criminal attorney, Steve Salmon, said he was reviewing the civil grievance and would discuss it with Lester. At a preliminary hearing in the criminal case, he said Lester acted in self-defense, terrified of a stranger who knocked on his door as he went to bed for the night.

“The lawsuit is based on what he said,” Merritt told The Associated Press. “If he says, ‘I made a mistake in mistaking this person for a robber,’ we say it is negligence. You weren’t paying enough attention. Anyone who rings your doorbell cannot be a thief.”

Yarl got the name of the house he was sent to choose up his siblings wrong. Yarl testified at trial that he rang the doorbell after which reached for the storm door as Lester opened the interior door. Lester told him, ‘Don’t you ever come here again,'” Yarl recalled.

Featured Stories

He said he was shot in the head, the force of the impact knocked him to the ground, after which he was shot in the arm.

The case, which has drawn international attention, has reignited national debates over gun policy and race in America.

In a statement, Nagbe said the shooting “not only shattered our family, but also exposed a critical gap in our social fabric where reckless actions threaten the safety of our children.”

The lawsuit also names the homeowner’s association, Highland Acres Homes Association, Inc., as a defendant. The association didn’t immediately reply to an email searching for comment.

Merritt said the family was aware that court proceedings may very well be delayed until the criminal case was resolved, but desired to proceed with the trial anyway. He cited a state law that permits a victim to access the files of a criminal case that has not yet been accomplished because the prosecutor asks the judge for clarification on the order to stay silent in the case.

Merritt said Yarl was “extremely resilient” after the shooting, but “his resilience kind of turned into impatience with being the person who got shot a year ago.”

“He doesn’t want to be that person,” Merritt said. “I want to be an amazing musician in a band, a good friend, a student, a rising student.”