The nation’s largest LGBT rights group takes on the high-end department store over a conflict between the store’s policies and a legal position it is taking against transgender employment protections. [Update: The company won’t say if it stands by the December court filing.]

hrc.org

The Human Rights Campaign announced Thursday it is making a public push against Saks Fifth Avenue after the retailer argued in court that transgender employees are not covered from discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

HRC is suspending Saks' largely positive score from its Corporate Equality Index, a ranking of companies' LGBT-related policies. The move comes less than two weeks after Saks & Co. told a court that a discrimination lawsuit filed by a transgender former employee should be dismissed because "transsexuals are not a protected class under Title VII" of the historic civil rights law.

Saks made the argument in a case brought by Leyth Jamal, a transgender woman who worked for Saks in Texas and was fired in 2012. Although there apparently is some dispute over the facts that led to Jamal's termination, at this point in the litigation Saks simply asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed because, the company argues, discrimination against transgender people is not illegal — not "a cause of action" — under the 1964 law.

Although Saks' lawyers state in the Dec. 29 filing that "it is well established that transsexuals are not a protected by Title VII," the lawyers completely ignore the bulk of the law's development in recent years — most notably the 2012 decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that Title VII does, in fact, protect transgender people from discrimination under its ban on sex discrimination. A similar view of the law has been taken by multiple appeals courts.

The Saks filing, moreover, came 11 days after Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Justice Department formally concurred with the EEOC's interpretation, noting in a memorandum, "I have determined that the best reading of Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination is that it encompasses discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status."

Additionally, Saks argued that, because "policies in an employee handbook do not create a contract," the company's nondiscrimination policy cannot constitute the "contract" under which Jamal is suing for a breach of contract.

"Saks' arguments are hugely concerning to us," the director of HRC's Workplace Equality Program, Deena Fidas, said in a statement provided to BuzzFeed News. "In its court filings, Saks attempts to secure a motion to dismiss Ms. Jamal's allegations by simultaneously calling into question the validity of its own non-discrimination policy and the larger, crucial protections afforded by Title VII."

Regarding its Corporate Equality Index, an effort to alert consumers to pro-LGBT or anti-LGBT policies of companies, Fidas added: "The policies our CEI advances are not window dressings for any company to prop up or disregard in the face of individual allegations of misconduct. Saks is publicly undercutting the applicability of its own policies reported in the CEI and we must suspend Saks' CEI score until further notice."

Jillian Weiss, Jamal's lawyer in the case against Saks, told BuzzFeed News, "I don't have any problem with Saks strongly defending this case, but that doesn't require them to make statements that transgender people are not protected from sex discrimination."

"They can't both be a defender of LGBT equality and argue that there should be no LGBT equality," she added.

BuzzFeed News has asked a spokesperson from Saks for comment, but has yet to receive a response to the inquiry.

View Entire List ›

As a freshman at Stanford.

Stanford Daily Archives

In early 1990s, a young Rachel Maddow was a student at Stanford University who had just figured out that she was gay in a Stanford freshman class that had nearly-zero out students.

"I decided I was going to come out in a very confrontational way," Maddow wrote in a Newsweek article in 2012. "So a friend who was coming out at the same time and I did and interview with the student newspaper about being the only two gay freshman on campus."

Maddow had already publicly come out in her dorm earlier in the winter by posting a public letter in her freshman dorm. The student newspaper, the Stanford Daily wrote the public letter was in response to homophobic comments Maddow had heard.

After debating the issue at length with her roommate, Maddow decided to go public by posting a letter in Paloma, an all freshmen dormitory. She agonized over her decision while in bed with the flu, and then "during one of my palpitations I just got up and wrote the letter," she said. Before posting her letter in the bathroom stalls, Maddow discussed her homosexuality with several close friends. It would be "heinous for them go read it in the bathroom like everyone else," she explained. Students admired Maddow's courage. "Why didn't you tell us before?" was the only negative reaction she received, she said. Maddow said she came out of the closet in response to several homophobic comments that she had heard in her dorm "I wanted to be there, not to stifle those comments, but to address them," she added. "I wanted to attach my face to those comments and see if they still wanted to say them."

The article in the Daily goes on to interview Maddow and Saydeah Howard, "two of the only openly lesbian freshmen on campus," about their decisions to come out. Although Maddow says that she initially "feared that people would run away from her in the lunch line" if she revealed that she was gay, coming out improved her life in a number of ways.

Coming out has also been a positive experience for Maddow, who said she feels more comfortable and happy with herself now. She said she has moved from vulnerable to confident, and that everything in her life is now more coherent. In the past, Maddow's homosexuality had been a barrier to close friendships, she said. To prevent people from realizing she was gay, Maddow shut herself off from other people. Coming out has solidified Maddow's friendships, with both men and women. "I'm a lot closer to all my friends," she said. "I don't feel like I've lost any friends." Being friends with men is easier than ever, since "it's a total bonding experience," Maddow said. "There's no tension, no pressure. It's wonderful."

Sanford Daily Archives

Maddow describes self-identifying as a lesbian as "a process, not a 'wham-bam thing' or a 'divine revelation,'" and explains that while she had previously had positive romantic relationships with men, "'It just didn't really click with me.'" After overcoming fears that being gay "would ruin her whole life" with the realization that the kind of future her sexuality would preclude was not one that she wanted, Maddow incorporated her lesbianism into her sense of her own identity.

At this point, Maddow had intellectually and philosophically decided that she was a lesbian. Maddow describes being out as a very political, "anti-assimilationist" statement. "I don't want to be perceived as something I'm not," she said about the common assumption that she is heterosexual. "So I have to go out of my way and make a statement."

Maddow expressed pleasure at how accepting the Stanford community had been, but was bothered by the ways that its atmosphere of political correctness prevented an honest dialogue about homosexuality; noting her concern with "the censoring effect of politically correct attitudes on campus ... Maddow said she would prefer if people who are against homosexuality felt comfortable enough to express their hostile feelings, so that she could address the issue."

Although the article's narrative of Maddow's coming out is largely positive, the actual process was complicated by the article itself. The Daily writes that "The only people whom Maddow has not informed are her parents. Seeing no urgent need to tell them, she said she has decided to wait on it."

In a 2012 piece for Newsweek, Maddow wrote about how the article was published before she could tell her "very Catholic" parents:

I told the paper, "I will do this [article] on the condition that you will not run the piece until after this weekend, because I will go home this weekend to tell my parents, and I want them to hear it from me instead of reading it in the paper." And they ran it before the weekend, and indeed some anonymous person helpfully clipped the article and mailed it to my parents—and that's how my parents found out that I was gay.

They would have had a hard time with me coming out anyway, but this was a particularly nasty way for them to find out. They're wonderful now, and couldn't be more supportive, but they took it poorly at first, which I don't fault them for. They were shocked and upset and hurt. First of all, they were having to deal with the fact that I'm gay. Second of all, they were having to deal with the fact that I'm gay in the newspaper. And third of all, they were having to deal with the fact that they've raised some sort of horrific, callous rug rat who would tell the student paper before telling her family.

View Entire List ›

Rep. Steve King has been included on top talks about President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

Rep. Steve King

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

WASHINGTON — House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy has brought Rep. Steve King, one of the GOP's biggest critics, into the fold on immigration, including the bombastic conservative in closed door discussions on legislation aimed at blocking President Obama's deportation executive orders, King said Thursday.

"I don't know about included, I've been there," King joked when asked about his participation. "No, I have, I've been in the meetings, and I've engaged in the discussions … we're moving close to moving a bill in draft that we can evaluate," the Iowa Republican said of the discussions on legislation to fund the Department of Homeland Security beyond mid-February and that will be voted on next week.

King also had rare praise for McCarthy. "Leader McCarthy has conducted a couple of really excellent meetings that were designed to hear from the people who are most closely engaged … he's working to bring out the will of the group. And that's what any leader should do," King said.

As one of the leaders of the Trouble Makers Caucus that has plagued leadership for four years, King's sunny participation in the process is no small feat for McCarthy, and aides hope it will translate into cooperation as the process of funding DHS moves forward over the coming weeks.

In fact, getting buy-in from conservatives like King — and, more importantly, convincing them that leadership in both chambers are sincere in their efforts to block Obama's orders — is a key part of the GOP strategy to get out from under the self-inflicted looming DHS shutdown crisis.

Publicly, leadership insists Republicans are only focused on defunding the immigration actions and are formulating their plans irrespective of what Democrats do — for example, a Senate filibuster or a presidential veto.

Of course, Speaker John Boehner, McCarthy, and other leaders are smart enough to see the obvious: Any bill that significantly damages Obama's immigration actions won't get anywhere near enough votes to override a veto, assuming it doesn't simply die in the Senate.

But playing ignorant of the political realities in Washington is the point. If Boehner and McCarthy are to avoid a DHS shutdown or public fight with conservatives, "we need to show we're sincere," a veteran Republican operative said this week.

And that means not, at least publicly, planning for the obvious: that after the House bill is finally declared dead, Republicans will need to find a way forward that either creates a veto-proof bipartisan majority in the Senate or that Obama will feel compelled to sign.

According to leadership aides, Boehner and his team will begin to broach the topic of next steps during next week's GOP retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania. "Immigration is going to be a major part of the retreat," a House leadership aide said, stressing that leaders "aren't going to present a plan … we'll discuss options with our members."

What those options may end up being remains unclear, although one potential course of action could be to pass a three-month extension of DHS funding and at the same time begin an expedited committee process in the House and Senate to produce legislation addressing border security issues.

That process, several Republicans said, could provide the party with the ability to open a public debate on immigration on their own terms that is focused on border security and potentially bigger immigration policy legislation.

At that point, the future becomes even murkier. No one can really predict whether leadership's efforts to pass a bill blocking the orders will mollify conservatives, and if not, whether enough of the Republican conference would go along with any sort of compromise.

But Rep. Louie Gohmert, who led a failed effort to block Boehner's speakership this week, remains doubtful of leadership's intentions.

"All we can be sure about is what we do. But our history in terms of our leadership is [they] don't do what we think we need to do, but what somebody else thinks we should do," Gohmert said.

An estimated 9 million students could benefit from the program with each full-time student saving an average of $3,800 per year, the White House said.

Obama's proposal is called the America's College Promise and will offer the first two years of college tuition free for students who meet a minimum GPA.

The White House said if all states participate, an estimated 9 million students could benefit from the program with each full-time student saving an average of $3,800 per year. Students will be required to be enrolled at least half-time and maintain a 2.5 GPA to be in the program.

States will have to choose to opt-in to the program. If they choose to participate, they will be required to either offer classes that transfer to local public four-year colleges and allow students to earn half of their credits needed to complete a four-year degree, or offer occupational training programs with high success rates that lead to useful degrees and certificates.

The federal government will pay for 75% of the two-year tuition, while states will be required to cover the remainder. No specifics were given about how much this will cost the federal government, but officials said it would be included in the budget.

The president also is proposing a related initiative called American Technical Training Fund that will teach technical skills to help people get better paying jobs. The programs may be offered through current community colleges or other training institutions.

The American Technical Training Fund is based off a program called Tennessee Tech Centers, which trains low-paid employees to do work in energy, IT, and advanced manufacturing, allowing them to move into a middle-class job.

Here's a preview of Obama's proposal:

View Video ›

View Entire List ›

“I can tell you my feelings were hurt,” says the Maryland governor. A Brown campaign consultant responds: “It’s disappointing that as his career is winding down so is his loyalty to a man who stood by his side for eight years.”

AP Photo / Patrick Semansky

In two weeks, Martin O'Malley will complete his last term as governor of Maryland, move his family from the official residence in Annapolis back home to Baltimore, and map out the presidential campaign he's been considering for months.

But as he considers a bid for the Democratic nomination, another race still casts a shadow over O'Malley's next move: the loss last fall of Anthony Brown, his lieutenant governor and hand-picked successor, to Larry Hogan, the Republican businessman few thought could win in a state considered left-leaning.

Hogan, who won by four points, campaigned more against the eight-year O'Malley administration than Brown, focusing on the string of tax hikes that voters, polls showed, considered the dominant motivating issue in the race.

On Thursday night, O'Malley suggested the Brown campaign strategy, not his policies, were to blame for the November loss. His comments, made at the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, were his most pointed on the subject yet.

"I'll let others determine whether the prospects were hurt. I can tell you my feelings were hurt," said O'Malley, asked about the race. "We had done a lot of really good things in Maryland, and yet you did not hear much of that during the campaign."

"I was not on the ballot in Maryland," he said.

The outgoing governor suggested that had Brown more forcefully defended his economic record, and the programs and improvements the tax revenues funded, the outcome would have been different. He cited his own reelection race in 2010, when his opponent, former governor Robert Ehrlich, also ran against tax hikes.

"When I was on the ballot — when we were criticized and our opponents hit us for many of those same votes they hit our lieutenant governor for — unemployment was twice as high and most of those votes were six years fresher," said O'Malley. "And we prevailed by 14 points by always coming back to the purpose of those tough choices — which is more jobs and better opportunities for our kids."

"So you rarely heard that affirmative story," he said of the 2014 race. (Brown targeted social issues, like Hogan's position on gun control and abortion.)

Asked about O'Malley's comments, a Brown campaign consultant, who asked to speak without attribution, said on Thursday, "It's disappointing that as his career is winding down so is his loyalty to a man who stood by his side for eight years."

O'Malley's camp has addressed the Brown race few times since the election.

The day after the election, a person close to the governor was quoted in Politico saying that Brown's campaign had been "poorly executed." O'Malley had even sounded "alarm bells" about the strategy, the source said. Later that month, the governor shrugged off the loss in an interview with the New Yorker.

Toward the end of the race, O'Malley appeared at more events for Brown and helped with get-out-the-vote efforts, calling himself the campaign's "deputy field director." But for much of last year, O'Malley spent his weekends away, stumping for Democrats in early-voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

Recent polls show that the majority of Maryland residents do not want the governor to run for president. He is expected to make his decision sometime this spring.

"I'm very seriously considering running in 2016," he said on Thursday.

On Jan. 21, at the inauguration in Annapolis, Hogan will take over as governor.

The task force meets for the first time next week and has 90 days to make policy recommendations. Members are ready to talk — but it’s tense.

A December protest after the grand jury decision not to indict the officer involved in Eric Garner's death.

Elizabeth Shafiroff / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Next week, President Obama's police task force will sit down for the first time amid an increasingly nasty, continuing conflict between police officers, public officials, and protesters in New York City.

No one has any clue how the task force will turn out.

Interviews with members of the president's Task Force on 21st Century Policing in recent days show a panel of activists and police leaders willing to sit down, but deeply divided on what the most important problems are, and which groups (police officers or minorities) are being unfairly targeted. The task force, announced in December and promoted by administration officials as senior as top adviser Valerie Jarrett, has 90 days to make policy recommendations.

Ron Davis, director of the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (known at the DOJ as COPS) and the executive director of the presidential task force, said he expects to begin with the basics.

"The first concept that I would embrace quite frankly draws from the Steven Covey Seven Habits of Effective Leaders. One of them is, 'Seek first to understand, then to be understood,'" said Davis, a former police chief of Palo Alto, California, and longtime Oakland police officer. "And I think all sides I think first have to understand the perspectives of others and respect that perspective even if they disagree with it."

That there should be conversation is about all the two sides of the policing debate, both represented on the panel, can agree on. That agreement may not extend very far, however.

Jose Lopez, a task force member and lead organizer for Make the Road NY, a group generally critical of police tactics, said police safety — a main focus of the law enforcement members on the panel — isn't his top priority. "I don't know if I could sit at that table. I don't imagine that I'll be in that position" to be responsible for figuring out how to keep police safe, Lopez told BuzzFeed News. "I'm there for community safety… for keeping black and brown people safe from the police."

Lopez was among the young activists who met with Obama to talk about policing in the Oval Office after Ferguson, and he said he's not willing to accept a final result from the task force that doesn't hold police accountable for their tactics and put deaths at the hands of cops on the same level as the deaths of police officers.

"Everyone was struck with grief that day [that two New York City police officers were shot and killed]. But we need the same response, and for police to respond the same way regardless of what life is taken. We understand that this is a loss, not just for the department, but for all of us," Lopez said. "This moment happened and it was a hard moment for New York. But in terms of response, why don't we respond the same way when a black man dies every 28 hours?"

Police leaders have expressed frustration with these kinds of questions, in numerous public statements in New York and elsewhere.

When it comes to the task force, police leaders not directly associated are keeping their distance. A representative for New York's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association declined to comment. A spokesperson for the International Union of Police Associations said the group will not be speaking about the task force until its findings have been released.

Sean Smoot, a task force member and the director of Police Benevolent and Protective Association of Illinois, said tensions among rank-and-file police officers are high and respect for the debate around policing is low. He said that, like the police critics, officers feel like they're not being heard by those in power.

"A lot of people still don't feel safe in their community. Now, statistically, they're safer now than they've ever been. But if they don't feel safe, the statistics really don't matter," Smoot said, referring to the decrease in crime in recent decades. "And it works the same way from the other side. If the officers don't feel supported, if they don't feel like the people who set the policy into place supports them in carrying out their duties, if it's well-founded or not, I don't know that it really matters. The perception: That's their reality."

Since officials first announced the Obama police task force on Dec. 18, a lot has happened — and an already tense situation has become more acute.

Fewer than 24 hours after the official list of members was announced on Dec. 18, New York Police Department supporters held a rally featuring cops wearing "I Can Breathe" T-shirts, an incendiary parody of the "I Can't Breathe" shirts that popped up across the country after a grand jury declined to indict NYPD officers after the death of Eric Garner.

The next day, a man shot and killed two Brooklyn police officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, who were sitting in their patrol car. At the memorials for the two murdered policemen, some rank-and-file officers turned their backs on New York's Mayor Bill de Blasio, who some police officers view as an ally of the protesters.

The situation has not abated in the days since. The National Fraternal Order of police is pushing for violence against police to be prosecuted as a hate crime and stepped up attacks on Obama for what they see as a weak defense of the cops.

Smoot, who has known Obama since the president's days in the Illinois legislature, acknowledged that some cops don't like comments the president has made in the months since Ferguson, criticizing police for militarized tactics and acknowledging that many still view the police as adversaries, particularly in communities of color — even as, he said, the state of race relations in America is improving. Smoot wouldn't answer when asked if Obama is "pro-police," though he said Obama has a "good heart" even if he's "made some mistakes like we all do."

Smoot said that as a member of the task force, he's keeping an open mind and going in without "any preconceived notions or goals." But he said that the current state of the debate has not included enough of the police point of view.

"In the law enforcement world, the true rank-and-file leaders are always open to a conversation," he said. "I don't think that there has been any real conversation. There have been a lot of accusations, there have been a lot of complaints, but there haven't been a lot of real conversations about what the real problems are, and what potential real solutions are."

Asked for potential areas of compromise between cop and protester, both sides say "disagreeing without being disagreeable" is a result in itself. As for tangible, real areas of agreement on how to change policing, Smoot said he'll wait for testimony and "keep an open mind." Lopez noted that "the White House has said this is not going to be a silver bullet."

The chasm between the sides represented on the task force stands in contrast with the White House expectation for quick results — especially with the tight, 90-day timeline on the task force laid down by the president for policy recommendations. The task force is charged with creating a list of real changes police can make, and Davis, the task force's executive director, said he intends to hit the deadline.

He said the current poor state of relations between police and some of the people they serve could actually be enough pressure to force results.

"The tension has captured national attention. I think everyone recognizes that something has to change. We need to move forward. People are recognizing that we need to come together to do so," Davis said. "So I think the time is now, I think the president is 100% right in his timing of it, and this is why we have a relatively quick turnaround. Because the timing is now. We do need concrete recommendations."

After oral arguments about Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas’ bans on marriages for same-sex couples, the 5th Circuit of Appeals looks likely to strike the laws down.

The plaintiffs and lawyers challenging Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas' marriage bans gather outside the courthouse after arguments were held in the cases on Friday, Jan. 9, 2014.

Chris Geidner/BuzzFeed

NEW ORLEANS — After three hours of arguments, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals appeared poised to strike down bans on same-sex couples' marriages in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas — joining all but one of the other appellate courts to consider the issue.

If the court upholds the lower court decisions striking down the Mississippi and Texas bans and reverses the trial court decision upholding Louisiana's ban, it could have the effect of bringing marriage equality to three Deep South states — and it could come before the Supreme Court acts on pending marriage cases.

More than halfway through the morning's arguments, an exasperated Justin Matheny, the assistant attorney general in Mississippi charged with defending the state's ban, tried to change his tune during his rebuttal arguments.

When it became clear that the three-judge panel was leaning against upholding the bans, Matheny acknowledged that the "trajectory" for marriage rights for same-sex couples is "undeniable" — but added his new argument: "it's not there yet."

Judge Patrick Higginbotham, born in Alabama almost eight decades ago and appointed to the appeals court by President Reagan more than three decades ago, spoke up. And though the older judge was hard to hear at times, he spoke loudly and clearly when he responded to Matheny: "Those words, 'Will Mississippi change its mind?' have resonated in these halls before."

Throughout the arguments, in fact, ghosts of court hearings past and court hearings future were a constant presence in the discussion.

Shortly into the arguments came the first mention of the fact that the Supreme Court was meeting at the same time as the 5th Circuit arguments in a private session to discuss, among other cases, whether to hear one or more appeals of five challenges to states' marriage bans.

Although the Supreme Court took no action on the pending requests on Friday, most court observers expect the court to take an appeal of at least one of the petitions pending for review in the coming weeks. The matter was complicated further by the fact that one of the parties before the 5th Circuit on Friday — the Louisiana case plaintiffs — already has asked the Supreme Court to review their case before the 5th Circuit even rules on the intermediate appeal.

Along with that future, the South's history with regards to federal court intervention to help enforce civil rights laws appeared to weigh heavily, particularly on Higginbotham.

At another point, when talking with the lawyer challenging Texas' ban about the timing of marriage cases, Higginbotham asked, rhetorically, "When do you challenge Plessy?" — a reference to the 1896 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "separate but equal."

Higginbotham, along with Judge James Graves Jr., grew increasingly skeptical of the three states' arguments as the morning wore on, with Judge Jerry Smith at times interjecting to slow down one of his colleagues' lines of questioning in the courtroom.

More than 150 observers cycled through the courtroom between the three cases, with many same-sex couples traveling from each of the states involved. There were about 120 people in the room at any time, a number that included about 20 reporters and as many as 30 or 40 lawyers and court staff in the front portion of the courtroom beyond the public seating.

When the arguments began a little after 9 a.m. Central Time, Camilla Taylor, the Lambda Legal lawyer representing the Louisiana same-sex couples, went for several minutes at a time with no interruption from the judges. It was a marked contrast from other appellate marriage hearings — where questions began almost immediately and continued throughout the allotted time.

Roberta Kaplan, the Paul Weiss lawyer representing the Mississippi couples, and David McNeel Lane, the Akin Gump lawyer representing the Texas couples, faced similar extended periods where they spoke without interruption from the bench.

The states' lawyers, on the other hand, faced a nearly constant stream of skeptical questioning from Higginbotham and Graves. Even Smith, who mostly served as a counterpoint to his colleagues, occasionally raised skeptical questions.

By the time outgoing Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell took to the podium at about 11:30 a.m. Central Time, the states' central argument — that they should only need to prove that the bans advance a legitimate state interest and that these bans meet that "rational basis" test — was hitting a brick wall from Higginbotham and Graves.

When Mitchell argued that marriage is, effectively, a subsidy given to opposite-sex couples because they could have children and the state wants parents raising their natural children to be married, Graves asked whether that "justif[ies] a wholesale withholding of the right" from same-sex couples.

When Mitchell argued in support of the states' other interest — couched as a "wait-and-see" approach or allowing the "democratic process" to play out — Graves asked how long the wait should be and Higginbotham drilled down further, asking, "What is the concern that we're waiting to see?"

For his part, Smith pressed two main points, both countered repeatedly by his colleagues on the bench. First, he argued that the 1972 Supreme Court summary dismissal in Baker v. Nelson, where the court said a marriage claim brought by a same-sex couple lacked "a substantial federal question," was still binding on the appeals court. The time since that decision included a "sea change" in courts' interpretation of equal protection law, Higginbotham said at one point by way of response.

"All this talk about Baker and the '70s is making me nostalgic for my Afro and my 8-track tapes," Graves, sporting a bald-headed look these days, quipped near the end of the morning's arguments.

Second, Smith referenced a 2008 Supreme Court decision for the fact that, under rational basis review, a law can have an "imperfect fit" between the state's interest and the means of addressing that interest. Higginbotham countered that while an "imperfect fit" is OK, a law or policy with "no fit" between the interest and the law or policy would not be allowed — which is precisely what lawyers for the same-sex couples argued on Friday.

There is no set timeline for when the 5th Circuit would need to rule on the three states' bans, and it is not immediately clear whether the 5th Circuit will issue a ruling on the appeals should the Supreme Court decide to review one or more of the pending petitions before it.

LINK: Listen to audio of today's 5th Circuit Court of Appeals marriage arguments.

Staten Island District Attorney Daniel Donovan announced today he will run for Michael Grimm’s vacated seat.

Via Youtube

Republican Daniel Donovan, the Staten Island district attorney who didn't win an indictment against the police officer who killed a cigarette vendor, announced today he will run for Michael Grimm's vacated seat in Congress.

Grimm resigned from office in late December after pleading guilty to a felony tax-evasion charge. After the news broke that Grimm would step down, Donovan said he would make a decision about running after due deliberation.

"In the week since my last announcement the enthusiasm for my candidacy has only broadened and intensified, with expressions of support also from beyond the two boroughs," Donovan said in a statement.

"Accordingly, please consider this my formal announcement that I will be seeking the endorsements of the Republican, Conservative, and Independence Parties in the upcoming Special Election for the 11th Congressional District of New York."

Donovan has received criticism for his handling of the Eric Garner choke-hold death case. A grand jury on Staten Island, which is home to many police officers, decided against indicting Daniel Pantaleo, the NYPD officer shown on video choking Garner before his death.

The grand jury's decision not to indict the police officers involved set off a wave of protests in New York and other cities.

When Donovan announced that he was considering a run last week, a police union official told BuzzFeed News they "would encourage him to run to lend his voice on a national level."

Donovan ran for New York Attorney General in 2010, promising to fight corruption in the New York statehouse. After winning his party's nomination, he lost in the general election to Democrat Eric Schneiderman.

Read his full statement:

How Romney got from 11 no’s to maybe on the question of 2016 — and what he has to decide before he takes the plunge. “Can you imagine what Ted Cruz is going to do to Jeb Bush?” one Romney insider tells BuzzFeed News.

Mitt Romney

Brian Snyder / Reuters

It wasn't long after Mitt Romney tottered off the national stage in November, 2012, bringing an end — it seemed — to the long, tragic story of his political career, when Spencer Zwick started getting phone calls from conservative millionaires who were clamoring for one last sequel.

Zwick, the square-jawed finance wunderkind who masterminded the candidate's phenomenally successful fundraising operation in 2012, had returned after the election to the private equity firm he co-founded with Romney's son, Tagg — but Mitt's network of GOP money men wouldn't stop hounding him. Inside Solamere Capital's pristine, white-walled offices on Boston's trendy Newbury Street, Zwick often found himself on the phone with major Republican fundraisers, bundlers, and donors putting the same questions to him.

"I got calls from people every day asking, 'Do you think he'll do it? How can we convince him to do it?'" Zwick said in an interview with BuzzFeed News.

With Friday's news that Romney told a group of donors he was now actively considering a third presidential bid in 2016, it appears the boosters have gotten through. "Everybody in here can go tell your friends that I'm considering a run," the former candidate told the gathering in midtown Manhattan, according to Politico. But insiders who spoke to BuzzFeed News about Romney's evolution on the 2016 question said he only began to entertain the possibility recently, and that he still needs to weigh a number of factors — including Jeb Bush's electability — before he decides to take the plunge.

Zwick didn't need donors to convince him that the ex-nominee should run again; as a longtime loyalist who had worked closely with Romney from the Salt Lake City Olympics to the Massachusetts governor's office and beyond, he said he repeatedly urged his mentor to keep his options open after the 2012 election.

"My argument was that 60 million people already voted for this guy," Zwick said. "He has the experience, he has the background, he has the skill set. My view is if we're going to beat Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren or whoever they nominate, we have to find somebody who can not only get through the primary, but who knows he can do the job. I don't see somebody in the [Republican] field who has the skill set he does. My view is he has to do this."

But despite all the cheerleading, Zwick said Romney was genuinely averse to the idea of a third run all through 2013 and much of 2014 — a sentiment that often came through whenever reporters asked him about his political future. For example, when a New York Times reporter interviewed him a year ago after the Sundance Film Festival screening of the documentary, Mitt — a sympathetic portrayal that did much to rehabilitate his image, at least in the political class — she asked whether he would run again. His response: "Oh no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no."

Most political observers counted the no's (there were 11) and took the emphatic denial at face value.

"I truly think that it was never a thought that he would ever do it again," Zwick said.

But then, the midterm elections kicked into gear and Romney — who became an in-demand surrogate and fundraiser, stumping in races across the country — caught the campaign bug again.

"Through the 2014 elections, he spent a lot of time on the road talking to voters," Zwick said. "He was reminded once again being on the trail that there are a lot of really important issues facing the country and he has the skill set to solve them, and that has weighed heavily on him."

The midterms also corresponded with a wave of stories in the political press about a possible Romney 2016 bid, many of which originated with supporters who wanted to fertilize the speculation. It worked; the stories ensured that hopeful donors would keep calling Zwick and other people they believed to have Romney's ear, making the media predictions a self-fulfilling prophecy. Zwick said he couldn't point to one day or event that changed the ex-candidate's mind, but he eventually began to see more willingness on Romney's part to engage the idea.

Another former campaign adviser said Romney has been troubled by the Obama administration's foreign policy, and what he sees as the disastrous consequences of the United States shrinking from its role as international leader.

"Mitt has been waking up every morning watching what's happening to the world, and he's incredibly distressed," said the adviser, who requested anonymity to speak without Romney's permission. He added that the former candidate believes his widely mocked 2012 warnings about Russia being "our number one geopolitical foe" — along with other hawkish campaign rhetoric — has been vindicated by world events. "Mitt predicted everything."

As he weighs his choices in the coming weeks, Romney won't be deterred by which candidates enter the primary, or by any displays of fundraising muscle-flexing, Zwick said. Earlier on Friday, Bloomberg Politics reported that Bush's team set a fundraising goal of $100 million for the first three months of this year in an effort to scare off prospective primary opponents. (Bush's spokesperson said the goal came from donors, and that their actual target is "far more modest.")

But Zwick said fundraising is the least of their concerns.

"It's a primary," he said. "You go back, there's always been multiple candidates in the race that could raise money…. And he has actually already won a primary before."

According to one former adviser, the biggest political question Romney will be considering as he makes his decision is whether Bush will be able to make it to the general election.

"Look, Jeb's a good guy. I think the governor likes Jeb," the adviser said. "But Jeb is Common Core, Jeb is immigration, Jeb has been talking about raising taxes recently. Can you imagine Jeb trying to get through a Republican primary? Can you imagine what Ted Cruz is going to do to Jeb Bush? I mean, that's going to be ugly."

The adviser added that aside from Bush, Romney doesn't believe any of the Republicans in the field are ready to take on Hillary Clinton in the general election.

"He's not going to be intimidated by Bill Clinton sitting in the front row of a debate, looking at him," the adviser said of Romney. "His dad has run for president. He's run before."

AP / Rich Pedroncelli

On Saturday night, two days and six hours after the announcement that Barbara Boxer would retire from the U.S. Senate, Lou Paulson was still fielding phone calls.

The labor chief ticked off the candidates. He has known them all for years: Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, Antonio Villaraigosa, Tom Steyer. Any one of them could run for the Senate seat that, just last Thursday, opened up to the next lot of California talent. “We have a deep relationship with everybody,” said Paulson, president of the state’s firefighters union and an executive board member of the California Federation of Labor.

There was that time Newsom, for instance, helped sort out…

Paulson stopped. A long pause on the line. Then a laugh.

“That’s Gavin Newsom on the phone right now,” he said. “Can I call you back?”

That's how the conversations went in California this weekend. Most people knew it was coming. (They even expected it’d be in January.) Boxer would retire in two years at the end of the term, her fourth, at age 75. And for the first time in more than two decades, the state would send someone new to Washington. Then there would be another governor’s race. And then the other senator, Dianne Feinstein, now 81, might step down, too. But on Thursday, when the West Coast woke up to Boxer’s announcement, the first of three statewide seats was there for the taking — except no one knew what would happen, inducing the candidates.

Few expected Boxer to announce her retirement this soon — not this early in the month and not last week. The news sent the state’s top Democrats clambering to figure out whether the job they want is the job they can get, depending on who else from what part of the state might run for the same seat and announce it first. More than one California strategist described the maneuvering as a “game of three-dimensional chess.”

On Saturday, two Democrats said they were “considering” a Senate run: Villaraigosa, the former mayor of Los Angeles, and Steyer, a hedge fund billionaire and climate activist. But the contest still depends on the two strongest candidates, Newsom and Harris. He is the lieutenant governor and former San Francisco mayor. She is the attorney general and former San Francisco district attorney. He is 47, and she is 50 — young stars who came up in California politics together, advancing every four years in near lockstep. Newsom and Harris share the same donors and base. They share the same political consultants. They share the same inherent electoral advantage in Northern California, where more people vote and the margins of victory are higher for Democrats than below the Kern County line. And they both know, they’ve long said, that they can’t share the same ballot.

The situation is more fluid than it is opaque. Most expect one to run for Senate in 2016, and the other for governor in 2018, succeeding Jerry Brown. In interviews this weekend, people close to Newsom and Harris described a fast-changing, somewhat uncomfortable three-day period of deliberation in which each has sought advice and consulted family, while navigating the concentric circles of their shared political universe, of which there are plenty.

Harris and Newsom are both represented by the same San Francisco firm, SCN Strategies. The firm is led by Ace Smith, who also ran Villaraigosa’s mayoral run-off in 2001 and two subsequent re-elections. Smith’s partner at SCN, Sean Clegg, was Villaraigosa’s deputy mayor. And Jason Kinney, a strategist handling press for Newsom on Thursday, has worked closely in the past with Chris Lehane, the operative who serves as Steyer’s top adviser.

Still, there is no “deal” between Newsom and Harris. No “smoke-filled room,” no secret pact that would install one as senator and the other as governor. The two Democrats, who share a long and complicated history, have not even spoken directly since before Boxer announced her retirement, according to a person familiar with their correspondence.

People aligned with both elected officials pushed back unanimously on press accounts of an assumed behind-the-scenes deal, negotiated by Newsom and Harris, or their consultants. (“There is no deal. There never was a deal,” said one strategist advising Newsom.)

The two camps have said the decision-making process can’t stretch far past early this week. But even as the weekend draws to a close, there remains a tacit understanding between both teams, sources said, that they would respect each other’s process and come to decisions independently. There is also a perception, including among their advisers, that neither candidate would surprise the other with a public announcement. The two will likely talk directly before making a final plan, one person close to Newsom said.

Now, Harris and Newsom are considering both Senate and gubernatorial bids, sources said.

In past months, supporters in each camp have stressed their candidate’s experience as an “executive” and their interest in managing the state, which ranks among the largest economies in the world and is considered one of the best national platforms in politics. But after Boxer’s announcement — with the decision now here to make — the Senate has taken on more appealing hues. Some Democrats who spoke with Newsom and Harris over the weekend were surprised by the extent to which both were thinking about a job that, at least publicly, neither candidate seemed to want as much as the state’s biggest stage.

“The governor's office is the top prize in California politics,” said Gil Duran, who has worked both for Harris and for Brown, now serving his fourth and final term in Sacramento. “That's the job you want if you're a top tier of Democratic leader. I think it would be hard for anyone who thinks they have a real shot a governor to run for Senate instead.”

Harris has been more guarded — publicly and privately, even with some advisers — about what she wants to do. Newsom is vocal and overt about his long-held ambition to serve as governor. (He has run for the job before — once, briefly, against Brown in 2010. But Newsom did poorly, withdrew, and campaigned instead for lieutenant governor, a position he has said he dislikes because it lacks executive authority.)

At a recent Bay Area fundraiser for Sen. Cory Booker, Newsom found himself among a group of four or five attendees when one asked for his thoughts on the Boxer seat.

“I’m really more of an executive,” Newsom replied, according to a person present.

After Boxer’s announcement, his former aides were pushing the same idea.

Nathan Ballard, Newsom’s former communications director, outlined the catalog of experiences that told of his boss’s “proven track record of executive leadership.” There were the restaurants he opened, and the whole city of San Francisco, Ballard said. “When you’ve been mayor of San Francisco, it’s like the king of a city-state. You have the city and county, over 30,000 employees, a port, an airport, and a regional center that views itself to be on par with New York, London, and Paris. So you really do have extraordinary power.”

But Newsom’s calculus was shifting by Friday. The lieutenant governor has long told close friends and advisers that a Senate bid wouldn’t be viable: He and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the documentary filmmaker, didn’t like the idea of moving their three young children to Washington. On Friday morning, to the surprise of many of his advisers, that changed. Newsom’s wife, two sources said, decided she was “open to the possibility.”

By Saturday, the Newsom allies were extolling his virtues as a legislator. “For him all along, he has had that legislative experience,” said one, citing his first job in politics, on the city’s board of supervisors. The Senate, they said, “has always been of interest to him.”

“He’s seriously considering it,” another person close to Newsom said.

Harris seems to be, too. Since Thursday, she has weighed whether the job of governor would be more limiting than a seat in the Senate, where some of the party’s most influential figures have built strong footholds and massive platforms. In Washington, officials from EMILY’s List, a group that supports pro-choice women running for office, and from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have been courting Harris with particular zeal, two sources said. Both organizations declined to comment on recruiting efforts.

Harris, a former prosecutor, has been more visible outside her state than most attorneys general. During her first term, she secured billions for California in a high-profile foreclosure-abuse settlement. Democrats in Washington have reasoned that she would be a boon to the party’s fundraising efforts. Newsom isn’t known as such a disciplined fundraiser. It was one reason he dropped out of the gubernatorial race in 2010. (One former strategist recalled Newsom talking policy, not money, during call-time with donors.)

Harris did spend more money in 2014, while Newsom saved most of his. Neither election was competitive, and some said the distinction shows Harris working to widen her state profile, particularly in Southern California, where she is less established. (Harris recently married and is now splitting her time between Los Angeles, where her husband is based, and San Francisco and, to a lesser extent, Sacramento.) The month before the election, Harris launched two positive television ads in Southern California: one on a truancy initiative, the other on the broad outlines of her law enforcement career. Disclosures also show Harris spent a hefty $50,000 on polling one month out from the race.

Harris may feel the pull of Washington, but her network of supporters still said this weekend that governor has been the idea. Newsom has more transparently and aggressively telegraphed his interest to the world in the executive role, and some who want Harris to hold off for the governor’s race said they worried she was being “shoehorned” into the running for Senate. But a large share of her donors still expect and envision a gubernatorial campaign. Harris would be the state’s first woman and first black governor.

Steve Phillips, a California donor and an early Harris backer, said his expectations haven’t changed. “I know many of her donors want to see her in the governor’s office.”

The real opportunity in the Senate race, regardless of what Harris and Newsom decide to do, will be for the next tier of candidates who can angle for second place. The campaign to fill Boxer’s seat will be the first open statewide race since California enacted a top-two primary system, where the two best-performing candidates advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation. “It’s a whole new ballgame,” said Garry South, who was a senior strategist on Newsom’s failed campaign for governor. “Even if you don’t win, you’ve got a statewide fundraising network and, if you do well, you’re a top-tier candidate for the Feinstein seat.”

There’s a history of candidates who lose their first time out and come back to win in California. Pat Brown, Jerry’s father, lost his first statewide race for attorney general in 1946 but won four years later and eventually became governor. And Feinstein lost her bid for governor in 1990, but won a special Senate election two years later.

“It’s far from being a death knell,” said South.

Villaraigosa, who served as the mayor of Los Angeles for two terms, has the least to lose in this sense, state Democrats said. He’s been out of office for a year and a half and could benefit from putting himself in the running, as he did on Saturday: “The urgency of the needs of the people of this great state have convinced me to seriously consider looking at running for California’s open Senate seat,” Villaraigosa said in a statement.

The former mayor has no political operation at the moment, and no entity through which he could raise money, pay for staff, or commission polling. Over the weekend, one adviser was fielding his press requests. Villaraigosa is known as a fierce campaigner, and could take advantage of his spot as one of the strongest Southern California candidates. State operatives also said he would benefit from better Latino turnout in 2016 than in an off-year race for governor. But Villaraigosa has not run statewide before, and could face a problem with organized labor because of his high-profile fights as mayor with unions.

“Antonio carries the most baggage,” said Paulson, the president of the California Professional Firefighters. “Our members didn’t have a great relationship with him.”

He may end up running against Harris or Newsom, but it’s more crucial for Villaraigosa to stay off the same ballot as another potential candidate: Eric Garcetti, the ambitious new mayor of Los Angeles who would siphon off some of the Southern California vote.

Before last week, Villaraigosa had told friends privately that he had no interest in the Senate, just governor, two people familiar with the conversations said. But on Thursday, Garcetti took himself out of the running for Boxer’s seat, suggesting he too wanted to run for governor.

Villaraigosa’s moves don’t change much for Harris and Newsom, people close to the two Democrats said. And neither do warnings that Steyer, the hedge fund manager and environmentalist, would be prepared to spend tens of millions in a Senate race.

In the 2014 election cycle, Steyer spent around $100 million funding candidates, largely through his super PAC, NextGen Climate, which has helped launch the financier’s political career. (After the election, the group laid off a large share of its staff, a NextGen Climate aide confirmed, describing the downsizing as “a natural part of the campaign cycle.”) The PAC will continue in 2016, regardless of Steyer’s personal plans.

Asked how much money Steyer is willing to put into the Senate race he’s considering, an aide would not name a specific figure, but said, “[He] would spend what is needed.”

California voters have not historically been good to first-time self-funding candidates. Chris Lehane, the strategist advising Steyer, said, “As a general proposition for any election and where — but especially in California — while money will get you a ticket to the electoral dance, it won't, can't, and shouldn't buy you electoral love. You need to be genuine, you need to be likable, and you need to give people a reason as to why to support you.”

Like most of the candidates thinking about the Senate now, Steyer originally had his eye on the governor’s office. But the hedge fund manager has considered whether he could better “leverage the issue of climate change” from the bully pulpit of the Senate, said a person close to the possible candidate. The team has also already done polling.

An aide said that Steyer, like all the rest, would decide about the race by next week.

But still, it all comes back to Harris and Newsom, and the line, years running now, about their relationship and political future: that the two Democratic stars are cordial rivals at best, and that the doom of their “collision course” is impending and certain.

In the last six months or so, they’ve tried to change that refrain.

Last summer, when the California Democratic Party chair asked each candidate to put on a fundraiser, Harris and Newsom volunteered to do one together instead — a first.

And this month, before his swearing-in, Newsom texted Harris to see if she would administer the oath herself, a source familiar with the conversation said.

Harris replied quickly in the affirmative.

An out gay New York Times reporter suggested a Hollywood actor is closeted on the same night an out gay Hollywood actor won a Golden Globe for portraying a closeted New York Times reporter.

At the Golden Globes on Sunday night, Matt Bomer, an out gay actor, won an award for his portrayal of Felix Turner, a closeted gay New York Times reporter, in HBO's The Normal Heart. The movie is based on Larry Kramer's semi-autobiographical play.

Jordan Strauss/Invision / AP

About an hour later, Kevin Spacey won a Golden Globe for his portrayal of Francis Underwood in House of Cards.

John Shearer/Invision / AP

Spacey has long been rumored to be gay — including in an infamous mid-1990s Esquire "Kevin Spacey Has a Secret" cover story — although he has never said so publicly.

View Entire List ›

Kerry landed in Islamabad Monday morning on an unannounced trip to meet with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Kerry will also visit the school attacked by Taliban, according to Agence France-Presse.

REUTERS/RICK WILKING

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Pakistan to urge the country's leaders to lead the fight against extremist groups.

Kerry landed in Islamabad Monday morning on an unannounced trip to meet with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his national security adviser, according to the Associated Press. The meeting focused on ways to eliminate extremist groups especially along the border with Afghanistan.

Gen. Lloyd Austin, the chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East and South Asia, accompanied Kerry.

From the Associated Press:

U.S. officials traveling with Kerry to Pakistan said Washington wants to ensure that there is a "real and sustained effort" to limit the abilities of the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani Network and Laskhar e Tayyiba, which pose direct threats to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, as well as to American interests.

Pakistan has been on high alert since last month's attack on a Peshawar school, which killed at least 141 people, most of whom were children. Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack on the school.

Following the attack, Pakistan has stepped up the fight against extremists by reinstating the death penalty for terrorists, trying civilian terror suspects in military courts, and increasing operations in the tribal areas.

The U.S. is also involved in the efforts against extremist groups. Last month at least seven were killed in a suspected U.S. drone strike in the mountainous regions near Afghanistan.

View Entire List ›

The justices turned down Louisiana same-sex couples’ request to skip over the appeals court and take their case directly, but they had no word on the cases out of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. [Update: Justices will consider again on Friday whether to hear Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and/or Tennessee marriage cases.]

Chris Geidner/BuzzFeed

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday held off, again, any announcement that it will hear a case or cases challenging bans on same-sex couples' marriages this year.

The Supreme Court did deny Louisiana same-sex couples' request to skip the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and hear their case directly, but the justices took no action on the four other marriage cases in which same-sex couples are seeking Supreme Court review.

The four other cases — from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee — came out of this past fall's decision from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the four states' bans. The 6th Circuit has, thus far, been the only federal appeals court to find such bans to be constitutional.

The dismissal of the Louisiana petition — seeking "certiorari before judgment" of the appeals court — was not surprising given that such requests to skip over the appeals courts are rarely granted.

The four cases are expected to be relisted for the justices' next conference, which will be on Friday. The court could announce any cases it has decided to take from that conference as soon as that afternoon.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest tells reporters, “I think it’s fair to say we should have sent someone with a higher profile.”

Reuters / LARRY DOWNING

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration made a mistake when it decided the United States would be represented at this weekend's unprecedented unity rally in Paris by the U.S. ambassador to France, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.

"I think it's fair to say we should have sent someone with a higher profile," Earnest said at the daily White House press briefing.

The White House took criticism from American journalists and Republican politicians after no senior U.S. leaders made an appearance at the Paris rally, meant to project unity after a series of terror attacks on French citizens, including the controversial newspaper Charlie Hebdo and a kosher bakery.

Earnest did not respond to multiple questions about the decision not to send a senior American official to the rally, which featured appearances by top leaders many countries including Germany, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the United Kingdom. He said President Obama "would have liked the opportunity to be there" in Paris but noted the rally was scheduled in just a few days and the president's security detail would have been "onerous" because of it.

An Obama appearance would have had the effect of "significantly impacting" the ability of millions to rally in Paris due to presidential security concerns, Earnest said.

Charles Warner, who raped and killed his roommate’s 11-month-old daughter, is set to be executed on Thursday. This would be the state’s first execution since inmate Clayton Lockett died of a heart attack in April 2014.

Oklahoma is set to execute Charles Warner on Thursday, Jan. 15, for the 1997 murder of an 11-month-old girl. This would be the state's first execution since its botched lethal injection of another inmate in April 2014.

AP Photo/Oklahoma Department of Corrections, File

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday denied Warner's request to stay his execution.

The three-judge panel, in denying the request of Warner and three other death row inmates, added that no judge on the court wished for further review of the matter — meaning that Warner's next step is to seek a stay from the Supreme Court.

Warner had been scheduled to be executed on April 29, 2014, the same day as Clayton Lockett. However, Warner's execution was postponed when Lockett died of a massive heart attack during a prolonged lethal injection using an untested three-drug combination, prompting the governor to temporarily halt executions and order a review of the state's execution procedures.

The Department of Corrections released a new protocol in September that allowed the state to continue using a controversial sedative — midazolam — which was used in problematic executions including Lockett's and two others in Ohio and Arizona.

The revised procedure called for using five times the amount of midazolam that was used in Lockett's execution. The previous protocol used 100 milligrams, which was increased to 500 milligrams.

On Jan. 8, four Oklahoma inmates, including Warner, filed a motion to stay their executions in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, citing problematic executions using midazolam, which they argued is an unreliable drug "to assure that a deep, comalike unconsciousness" required for a constitutional execution is achieved. The motion was denied Monday.

Dale Baich, one of Warner's attorneys, said in a statement that they will appeal to the Supreme Court to prevent the executions from going forward.

"We know that midazolam does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of preventing cruel and unusual suffering and that it does not reliably anesthetize prisoners during executions," Baich said. "We know this because of Clayton Lockett's execution, where he struggled for over 30 minutes; and because of Dennis McGuire's execution, where he made snorting noises for more than twenty minutes; and because of Joseph Wood's execution, where he gulped and gasped for almost two hours."

Last month, a federal judge in Oklahoma refused to stay their executions, which are scheduled in the first three months of this year.

Warner was convicted of brutally raping and murdering Adrianna Waller, the 11-month-old daughter of Sharon Waller who lived with Warner and his two children. The medical examiner had ruled her death as homicide caused by multiple injuries to her head, chest, and abdomen.

The inmates' appeal contends that midazolam is an "untried and untested alternative" that will not result in constitutionally humane executions.

The execution chamber at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester.

AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki,

The appeal states that Oklahoma rushed to choose it "under time and political pressure" as a replacement for the sedative pentobarbital "despite uncontroverted evidence that the botched execution of Clayton Lockett proved that midazolam did not maintain him in a state of unconsciousness" when the other two drugs — vecuronium bromide and potassium chloride — were injected.

The inmates claim that the use of midazolam creates a risk of serious harm to them and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment, which protects them from cruel and unusual punishment.

The appeal cites two experts who express concern that administering a paralytic drug to prisoners after sedating them with midazolam will make it impossible for the execution team members and witnesses to know if the prisoners regain consciousness and suffer during the execution.

Lawyers for the inmates argued that it was only after a flawed IV placement caused the paralytic drug to fail in Lockett's execution that he regained consciousness and was seen writhing, moaning, and clenching his teeth.

View Entire List ›

“More than 800 federal managers” ordered to check their social media security after an embarrassing break-in at the Pentagon.

WASHINGTON — Within minutes of the first reports that CENTCOM's social media feeds had been taken over by hackers promoting ISIS, the General Services Administration was ordering a government-wide social media audit.

"Immediately after the hack was noticed, GSA began widespread distribution of guidance for preparing for and responding to social media hacking, an instructional video on how to increase security with two-step verification, and asked more than 800 federal managers in the SocialGov Community to conduct independent audits of their programs and confirm the audits with their leadership," GSA spokesperson
Jackeline Stewart told BuzzFeed News.

GSA will host a webinar for government agencies Thursday aimed at teaching them "how to prepare/respond to social media hacks."

The CENTCOM hack was doubly embarrassing to the Obama administration, which was in the middle of a presidential speech on cybersecurity when the hack first appeared. The Pentagon, which has been conducting a military campaign against ISIS, saw CENTCOM's social media channels converted into a propaganda tool for the enemy. The hack didn't appear to do much real damage, according to the Pentagon. A Defense spokesperson told reporters the hack was a "cyber prank" that didn't include any real compromising of classified data.

For the rest of the federal government, the hack was an opportunity to re-evaluate social media protocols GSA has been trying to impose government-wide for years. GSA's DigitalGov initiative — a portal site for government offices that use digital tools and social media — reposted anti-hacking guidelines and began tweeting about the hack shortly after it was discovered.

CENTCOM, like many federal agencies, is not verified on Twitter. The lack of the signature blue checkmark raised eyebrows as news of the CENTCOM hack flew around social media. A representative for the company did not respond on the record to questions about CENTCOM's verification status, and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The ruling is on holding pending any appeal from the state.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in South Dakota added her voice to the chorus of judges ruling over the past 13 months that bans on same-sex couples' marriages violate the Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry. South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification," U.S. District Court Judge Karen Schreier wrote on Monday.

The ruling is stayed, or on hold, pending any appeal from the state. "Because this case presents substantial and novel legal questions, and because there is a substantial public interest in uniformity and stability of the law, this court stays its judgment pending appeal," she wrote in the judgment for the case.

In a statement, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley suggested that an appeal is forthcoming, saying, "It remains the State's position that the institution of marriage should be defined by the voters of South Dakota and not the federal courts. Because this case presents substantial legal questions and substantial public interest the Federal Court has stayed its judgment allowing South Dakota law to remain in effect pending the appeal."

Lawyers for the same-sex couples challenging the ban, however, told BuzzFeed News that they also will challenge the stay should South Dakota officials appeal the ruling.

"The Supreme Court and federal appellate courts have not been kind to these stays in recent months," lawyer Joshua Newville said. Because of the fact that other decisions have not been stayed pending appeal, National Center for Lesbian Rights lawyer Shannon Minter added, "It seems unfair that couples in South Dakota would have to wait."

In deciding whether the state's ban violates a fundamental right — here, the right to marry — Schreier rejected "defendants' argument that the court should limit the fundamental right to marriage based on the traditional understanding of that right," in other words, limited only to opposite-sex couples, instead concluding that such a view "is contrary to Supreme Court precedent."

As to whether the ban violates equal protection guarantees, Schreier found that the infringement of a fundamental right in connection with a claimed equal protection violation effectively controlled the question and meant that the ban violated equal protection as well.

"For reasons stated with respect to plaintiffs' due process claim, South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban deprives same-sex citizens of a fundamental right, and that classification is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest," Shreier wrote, in finding that equal protection guarantees were violated as well.

Schreier was nominated to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1999.

Read the opinion:

The White House said it should have sent someone with a “higher profile” to the event.

AP J. Scott Applewhite

WASHINGTON — The French ambassador on Monday dismissed any notion that the Obama administration's failure send a higher-ranking official to Sunday's anti-terrorism rally in Paris is seen as an insult to France.

"It's an intra-American controversy," said Gérard Araud, France's ambassador to the United States told reporters. "It's not a French one."

Millions attended the rally, including high-profile leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron. The rally was meant to show unity after several terror attacks took place in France, including the shootings at Charlie Hebdo, a satirical newspaper.

The rally was attended by the U.S. ambassador to France.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday the administration made a mistake by not sending someone "with a higher profile" to the event.

Araud went to Capitol Hill Monday to have a "condolence book" signed by several senators. Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell all signed.

Araud said the book signing, in addition to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry visiting the French Embassy, was "complimentary to all the Americans have done so far."

“Nixon’s and the governmental hierarchy’s imperialistic intentions i.e., extending American ideology, creating new American markets, and exploiting dark-skinned people through a repressive and selfish form of capitalism — are evident in Southeast Asia as elsewhere.”

In the 1970s, now-Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown was Yale-bound senior at Mansfield High School and president of his high school student council.

Active in politics, Brown campaigned for George McGovern while at Yale. Brown also maintained a sporadic correspondence with the Mansfield News-Journal, writing an array of left-of-center opinions to the editor on McGovern and Vietnam.

In an op-ed as a high school senior, Brown says the Nixon Administration is turning the United States into a "fascist police-state."

Mansfield News-Journal

Brown takes aim at what he calls "inordinate and overzealous nationalism" on the part of the United States. Brown describes the "general atmosphere of America" as "one of paranoia, intolerance, and injustice."

Mansfield News-Journal

Brown responds to a letter from another person about George McGovern's tax proposals by lamenting corporate welfare, writing that he supports McGovern for president because he wants to "make the tax system more equitable."

Mansfield News-Journal

View Entire List ›

“It’s a free country.”

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Republican Senators weren't exactly thrilled to hear the news that their last presidential candidate Mitt Romney was considering another run at the White House.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, another potential 2016 candidate himself, called Romney a "decent and honorable" man but said that he personally believed there needed to be a more conservative candidate in the next election.

"Every potential candidate has to make his or her own determination… there are differing approaches," Cruz told reporters. "There are some who believe that the way for Republicans to win is to run to the mushy middle; electoral history disproves that thesis. Indeed every time we've done that we've lost. I for one, count myself with President Reagan who said the path to victory is painting in bold colors and not pale pastels. "

The Washington Post reported on Monday that Romney was reaching out to supporters and donors as he weighs a third run.

Sen. John McCain, who also ran for president two times (becoming the nominee only once in 2008), told reporters that Romney had not called him in the last several days.

McCain responded, "It's a free country" when asked what he thought of Romney running again.

"I thought there was no education from the second kick of the mule," he said. "But I respect his judgment."

McCain also threw in his own endorsement to his colleague Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has said he may step up to run.

"Watch Lindsey, he's the dark horse," he said.

As for Graham, he said that Romney would have to "make the case that the third time's the charm."

"Structurally, he would have to improve, and so would the whole party," he said. "It's not just him. We would all have to improve."