SALT LAKE CITY: Lawyers for the 22-year-old Utah man charged with killing Charlie Kirk are due in court Thursday as they push to further limit media access in the high-profile criminal case.
A Utah judge is weighing the public’s right to know details in Tyler Robinson’s case against his attorneys’ concerns that the swarm of media attention could interfere with his right to a fair trial.
Robinson’s legal team and the Utah County Sheriff’s Office have asked Judge Tony Graf to ban cameras in the courtroom.
Prosecutors have charged Robinson with aggravated murder in the Sept. 10 shooting of the conservative activist on the Utah Valley University campus in Orem, just a few miles north of the Provo courthouse. They plan to seek the death penalty.
Robinson was expected to appear in person Thursday after making previous court appearances via video or audio feed from jail, according to a transport order.
A coalition of national and local news organizations, including The Associated Press, is fighting to preserve media access in the case.
Graf has already made allowances to protect Robinson’s presumption of innocence before a trial, agreeing that the case has drawn “extraordinary” public attention.
Graf held a closed hearing on Oct. 24 in which attorneys discussed Robinson’s courtroom attire and security protocols. Under a subsequent ruling by the judge, Robinson is allowed to wear street clothes in court during his pretrial hearings but must be physically restrained due to security concerns. Graf also prohibited media from filming or photographing Robinson’s restraints after his attorneys argued widespread images of him shackled and in jail clothing could prejudice future jurors.
Michael Judd, an attorney for the media coalition, has urged Graf to let the news organizations weigh in on any future requests for closed hearings or other limitations.
The media presence at Utah hearings is already limited, with judges often designating one photographer and one videographer to document a hearing and share their images with other news organizations. Additional journalists can typically attend to listen and take notes, as can members of the public.
Judd wrote in recent filings that an open court “safeguards the integrity of the fact-finding process” while fostering public confidence in judicial proceedings. Criminal cases in the US have long been open to the public, which he argued is proof that trials can be conducted fairly without restricting reporters as they work to keep the public informed.
Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, has called for full transparency, saying, “We deserve to have cameras in there.” Her husband was an ally of President Donald Trump who worked to steer young voters toward conservatism.
Robinson’s legal team says his pretrial publicity reaches as far as the White House, with Trump announcing soon after Robinson’s arrest, “With a high degree of certainty, we have him,” and “I hope he gets the death penalty.”
Attorney Kathy Nester has raised concern that digitally altered versions of Robinson’s initial court photo have spread widely, creating misinformation about the case. Some altered images show Robinson crying or having an outburst in court, which did not happen.
Judge to decide degree of media access in Charlie Kirk killing case
https://arab.news/jmyuk
Judge to decide degree of media access in Charlie Kirk killing case
- A Utah judge is weighing the public’s right to know details in Tyler Robinson’s case
- A coalition of national and local news organizations is fighting to preserve media access in the case
Obamacare health subsidy to end as US Senate rejects dueling remedies
- Senate rejects Republican and Democratic health care proposals
- Democratic plan sought subsidy extension; Republicans offered to boost health savings accounts
WASHINGTON: The US Senate on Thursday rejected competing proposals by Republicans and Democrats to address a looming health care crisis, leaving some 24 million Americans vulnerable to significantly higher insurance premiums beginning on January 1 when a federal subsidy expires.
Barring any late breakthroughs, Congress will begin an end-of-year holiday recess sometime next week and not return until January 5, after new premiums are locked in for those who had relied on the Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidy.
In back-to-back votes largely along party lines, Democrats and Republicans blocked each other’s bill.
The House of Representatives might attempt to pass some sort of legislation next week, which has not yet been unveiled. Even if it were to pass, Senate Democrats, and possibly some Republicans, would oppose it and they could use their votes to kill that effort.
“After today’s vote, the American health care crisis is 100 percent on their shoulders,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said of Republicans.
Senate Republican leader John Thune dismissed the Democratic bill as “a political messaging exercise” and said “Republicans are ready to get to work. I’m not sure yet that Democrats are interested.”
The bitter battle in Congress has left some Americans uncertain over renewing their health insurance under the federal health care program.
The percentage of returning customers in the Obamacare exchanges is slightly down from a year ago, with the government reporting 19.9 percent of people enrolled this year opting to renew their plans so far, down from 20.5 percent this time last year.
The Republican bill by US Senators Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Mike Crapo of Idaho would have sent up to $1,500 to individuals earning less than 700 percent of the federal poverty level — about $110,000 for an individual or $225,000 for a family of four in 2025. Those funds could not be used for abortion or gender transition procedures and would require verification of beneficiaries’ immigration or citizenship status — provisions Democrats reject.
The Democratic proposal on the subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, would have extended COVID-era subsidies for three years to keep insurance premiums from soaring for many. Without action by Congress, those premiums could more than double in cost on average, according to KFF, a health policy organization.
Sixty votes were needed to pass either measure in a Senate that Republicans control 53-47. Four Republicans voted for the Democratic proposal. No Democrats backed the Republicans’ bill.
President Donald Trump has largely sat out the brawl over health care, although he ultimately embraced the Cassidy-Crapo approach.
At Thursday’s bipartisan Congressional Ball, Trump predicted Republicans and Democrats would work together on health care. But he advocated for the Republican bill.
“We have an idea that rather than making these massive payments... insurance companies, we make beautiful big payments directly to the people, and they buy their own,” Trump said in remarks at the black-tie event at the White House.
The $1,500 payments in the Republican bill were meant to cover some of the out-of-pocket costs that people in the “Bronze” or “Catastrophic” categories — the lower-cost Obamacare plans — need to pay before their insurance kicks in.
However, it is far below the plans’ deductibles, meaning that even after that payment, a patient would be on the hook for up to $7,500 in out-of-pocket medical expenses before their insurance would start to pay for part of their care.
Those costs can rack up quickly for people with lower-cost plans, with a visit to a US emergency room costing between $1,000 and $3,000, while an ambulance ride can cost anywhere from $500 to over $3,500.
With 2026 congressional elections coming into focus, many Republicans are nervous about the prospect of stiff premium increases hitting every state, including many that backed Trump’s 2024 re-election. Polling indicates voters could mostly punish Republicans, who control Congress and the White House.
Republican US Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, a state that Trump carried by 18 points in his 2024 re-election, said his constituents have been telling him, “We can’t afford our premiums now, let alone if they would go up by 50 or 100 percent.”
Insurance companies warned customers of the rising premiums in the new year, and Democrats argued there was not enough time to do anything but a clean extension of the tax credits they sought.
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll found Americans back a health care subsidy continuation. Some 51 percent of respondents — including three-quarters of Democrats and a third of Republicans — said they support extending the subsidies. Only 21 percent said they were opposed.
Moderate Republican Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania is spearheading a bipartisan bill to extend the subsidy through 2027. He is hoping to garner enough support to circumvent leadership and force votes on the measure by the full House.
