Columbia University president Minouche Shafik is no stranger to navigating complex international issues, having worked at some of the world’s most prominent global financial institutions.

At the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, for example, she tackled both the European debt crisis and the Arab Spring.

It remains to be seen, however, if her experience with world conflicts has sufficiently equipped her to navigate the thorny challenges she faces amid ongoing student protests over the Israel-Hamas war.

“The reason you protest is to call attention to an issue,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. “And you do that by challenging the normal order of things. It’s not a problem to be solved, but a tension to be managed.”

The task before her — to balance the demands of students, faculty and politicians — is also a reflection of just how complex governing universities has become in this day and age, when college footprints have grown ever larger, observers say. And it echoes the experience of a growing number of university leaders who, like Shafik, come from nonacademic backgrounds.

Thus far, it seems no one is happy with Shafik’s responses to the protests that began last week at Columbia.

Her decision to ask New York City police to intervene, resulting in the arrests of more than 100 protesters, only served to motivate the demonstrators, who quickly regrouped — and to inspire other students at campuses around the country.

Shafik initially appeared to have weathered the grilling by Republican lawmakers who have expressed growing concern about antisemitism on college campuses. She struck a more conciliatory tone before the House Education and Workforce Committee than the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, who were forced to step down after they were widely criticized for emphasizing free speech protections during their appearances before the same panel.

But Columbia’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors responded angrily to her congressional testimony, accusing her of capitulating to demands from lawmakers who they said made “slanderous assaults” on faculty and students. The AAUP submitted a motion of censure against Shafik. While it does not call for her resignation and is largely symbolic, it reflects the intensity of anger on campus toward her actions.

And now lawmakers are piling on again.

Republicans in New York’s delegation to the U.S. House on Monday wrote a letter urging Shafik to resign, saying she had failed to provide a safe learning environment in recent days as “anarchy has engulfed the campus.” During a visit to Columbia on Wednesday, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson called for Shafik to resign “if she cannot bring order to this chaos.”

In a written statement to Congress preceding her in-person testimony, Shafik described a childhood in Egypt and then in the Southeast as schools were desegregating, saying those experiences gave her the skills necessary “to engage with and learn from people with a wide array of backgrounds and experience overcoming discrimination firsthand.”

But that may not be enough; Shafik’s position at Columbia also appears to require a fair amount of political finesse.

It’s not only that she must try to balance principles of free speech and academic freedom with creating a safe environment on campus. Like other college presidents these days, she also is charged with balancing the pillars of shared governance between the faculty, the board and the administration, said Katherine Cho, assistant professor of higher education at Loyola University Chicago.

“Oftentimes, all three groups have different ideas of what the college is and how well the president is doing their job … and the president might have a different definition of how they think that they’re successful,” Cho said.

When she arrived at Columbia last year, Shafik was the first woman to take on the role of president and one of several women newly appointed to take the reins at Ivy League institutions.

Her experience in finance, rather than academia, puts her in line with more and more university leaders who come from nonfaculty backgrounds.

After obtaining her master’s degree at the London School of Economics, she went on to earn a doctorate at Oxford University. She rose through the ranks at the World Bank, eventually becoming the bank’s youngest-ever vice president.

Shafik also worked at the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development, followed by stints at the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of England, before taking over the leadership of the London School of Economics.

At the time of Shafik’s appointment, Columbia Board of Trustees chair Jonathan Lavine described her as a leader who deeply understood “the academy and the world beyond it.”

“What set Minouche apart as a candidate,” Lavine said in a statement, “is her unshakable confidence in the vital role institutions of higher education can and must play in solving the world’s most complex problems.”

Shafik also framed her international experience as foundational to her leadership of Columbia in her testimony to lawmakers.

“These experiences have shown me that education is the single most powerful tool to make our communities and our world better,” she said in her written statement. “And, amid these challenging times, I believe it is important for the Columbia community to realize the powerful impact of our core educational mission.”

___

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A memorial at the National Cathedral in Washington on Thursday will honor the seven World Central Kitchen aid workers killed by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza earlier this month.

José Andrés, the celebrity chef and philanthropist behind the Washington-based World Central Kitchen disaster relief group, is expected to speak at the celebration of life service, and famed cellist Yo-Yo Ma will perform, organizers said.

The Biden administration said Thursday that Douglas Emhoff, husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, and U.S. Assistant Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell would be among senior administration figures attending.

The aid workers were killed April 1 when a succession of Israeli armed drones ripped through vehicles in their convoy as they left one of World Central Kitchen’s warehouses on a food delivery mission. Those who died were Palestinian Saifeddin Issam Ayad Abutaha; Britons John Chapman, James Kirby and James Henderson; dual U.S.-Canadian citizen Jacob Flickinger; Australian Lalzawmi Frankcom; and Polish citizen Damiam Sobol.

After an unusually swift investigation, Israel said the military officials involved in the strike had violated policy by acting based on a single grainy photo that one officer had contended — incorrectly — showed one of the seven workers was armed. The Israeli military dismissed two officers and reprimanded three others.

The aid workers, whose trip had been coordinated with Israeli officials, are among more than 220 humanitarian workers killed in the six-month-old Israel-Hamas war, according to the United Nations. That includes at least 30 killed in the line of duty.

The international prominence and popularity of Andres and his nonprofit work galvanized widespread outrage over the killings of the World Central Kitchen workers. The slayings intensified demands from the Biden administration and others that Israel’s military change how it operates in Gaza to spare aid workers and Palestinian civilians at large, who are facing a humanitarian crisis and desperately need aid from relief organizations as the U.N. warns of looming famine.

World Central Kitchen, along with several other humanitarian aid agencies, suspended work in Gaza after the attack. “We haven’t given up,” World Central Kitchen spokesperson Linda Roth said last week. “We are in funeral mode right now.”

Religious leaders of a range of faiths are set to participate in Thursday’s services. Funerals were held earlier in the workers’ home countries.

___

AP writer Menelaos Hadjicostis in Nicosia, Cyprus, contributed to this report.

Action in courts and state capitals around the U.S. this week have made it clear again: The overturning of Roe v. Wade and the nationwide right to abortion did not settle the issue.

One iteration of the issue was back before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday for the second time in a month.

Meanwhile, Arizona lawmakers took a step toward repealing a near-total ban before enforcement can begin; California’s governor pitched providing an outlet to abortion providers and patients from neighboring Arizona if that ban takes take effect; and Tennessee moved closer to criminalizing helping a minor go out of state for an abortion without parental consent.

Here’s what to know about the latest developments.

Three Republican lawmakers joined Democrats in the Arizona House to advance a bill repealing an abortion ban that was first put on the books in 1864, decades before Arizona became a state.

Democrats, including Gov. Katie Hobbs, had been pushing for a repeal since the Arizona Supreme Court ruling earlier this month that found the ban can be enforced since Roe v. Wade’s overturning. Republicans had used procedural moves to block a vote on a repeal, which appears to have enough support to pass the state Senate.

The state’s attorney general, also a Democrat, said enforcement won’t begin until at least June 8.

There’s been pressure on Arizona lawmakers to repeal from the state’s governor, President Joe Biden, and the governor of neighboring state California. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday announced a measure that would allow doctors from Arizona to provide abortions for Arizona patients in California.

Under the proposed California legislation, Arizona providers could work in California without additional licenses though November.

Fourteen other states are already enforcing bans on abortion in all stages of pregnancy. But California has not proposed this kind of help for any of them, possibly because none shares a border with it.

At least one ballot measure on abortion could be before Arizona voters in November in the political battleground state.

The conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned Roe v. Wade less than two years ago, seemed skeptical about the Biden administration’s contention in arguments Wednesday that Idaho should be forced to allow abortion during medical emergencies.

The administration argued that a federal law that requires care hospitals that accept Medicaid provide emergency care even when patients cannot pay means that hospitals must also provide abortions in emergency situations when a patient’s health is at serious risk.

Idaho’s exceptions are narrower than that, allowing abortion only when the woman’s life is at risk.

It was the second time in a month that abortion was before the high court. It’s also considering whether to roll back the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approvals for a drug that’s often used in combination with a second drug for medication abortions — which are now the most common method of abortion in the U.S.

Rulings on both cases are expected by June.

With a state Senate vote Wednesday, Tennessee became the second state to give full legislative passage to a measure banning taking a minor out of the state without parental consent to obtain an abortion.

If Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, signs it into law, it would impact only the part of the journey in Tennessee — not the actual crossing of a state line.

Abortion is banned in all stages of pregnancy in Tennessee and five of the eight states it borders.

Idaho passed a similar law last year, but a court has put enforcement on hold because of a legal challenge. A Tennessee law would also likely also face court challenges.

California’s governor has also fought against this measure and others like it that were proposed in other states, launching an ad campaign against them earlier this year.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills on Monday signed a bill making her state at least the 14th with a law intended to protect those who provide abortion for out-of-state patients from legal action in those other states.

Maine’s law will take effect in the summer.

It’s a reminder that abortion policy has flowed in two directions since the end of Roe v. Wade in 2022: Most GOP-dominated states have sought to tighten access, while most Democrat-controlled ones have moved to protect or expand it.

Like several of the others, Maine’s measure also applies to gender-affirming health care. In addition to imposing abortion bans or restrictions, most Republican-controlled states have also adopted bans on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

NEW YORK (AP) — A reluctant Donald Trump will be back in a New York City courtroom Thursday as his hush money trial resumes at the same time that the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in Washington over whether he should be immune from prosecution for actions he took during his time as president.

Jurors will hear more witness testimony from a veteran tabloid publisher, and Trump faces a looming decision over whether he violated a gag order imposed by the judge. But he had asked to skip out on his criminal trial for the day so he could sit in on the high court’s special session, where the justices will weigh whether he can be prosecuted over his efforts to reverse his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.

That request was denied by New York state Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the trial on the hush money scheme that was meant to prevent harmful stories about Trump from surfacing in the final days of the 2016 campaign.

“Arguing before the Supreme Court is a big deal, and I can certainly appreciate why your client would want to be there, but a trial in New York Supreme Court … is also a big deal,” Merchan told Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche last week when he nixed the idea.

Though 200 miles apart — and entirely separate cases — the proceedings Thursday were jumbled together in one big legal and political puzzle that has implications not just for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, but for the American presidency writ large.

In both instances, Trump is trying to get himself out of legal jeopardy as he makes another bid for the White House. But the outcome of the Supreme Court case will have lasting implications for future presidents, because the justices will be answering the never-before-asked question of “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

The high court’s decision may not impact the New York City case, which hinges mostly on Trump’s conduct as a presidential candidate in 2016 — not as a president. He faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments meant to stifle embarrassing stories from surfacing. It is the first of four criminal cases against Trump to go before a jury.

The New York trial resumes after a scheduled day off with more testimony from the Manhattan District Attorney’s first witness, David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer and a longtime friend of Trump’s who pledged to be his “eyes and ears” during his 2016 presidential campaign.

In testimony earlier this week, Pecker explained how he and the tabloid parlayed rumor-mongering into splashy stories that smeared Trump’s opponents and, just as crucially, leveraged his connections to suppress seamy stories about Trump, including a porn actor’s claim of an extramarital sexual encounter years earlier.

Pecker traced the origins of their relationship to a 1980s meeting at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and said the friendship bloomed alongside the success of the real estate developer’s TV show “The Apprentice” and the program’s subsequent celebrity version.

Pecker recounted how he promised then-candidate Trump that he would help suppress harmful stories and even arranged to purchase the silence of a doorman.

“I made the decision to purchase the story because of the potential embarrassment it had to the campaign and to Mr. Trump,” Pecker said of the doorman’s story that his publication later determined wasn’t true.

Judge Merchan may also decide whether or not to hold Trump in contempt and fine him for violating a gag order that barred the GOP leader from making public statements about witnesses, jurors and others connected to the case.

Some of Trump’s recent online posts in question included one describing prosecution witnesses Michael Cohen, his former attorney, and Stormy Daniels, the porn actress, as “sleaze bags” and another repeating a false claim that liberal activists had tried to infiltrate the jury.

Merchan criticized Blanche this week for excusing the posts as Trump simply responding to political attacks and commenting on his experience with the criminal justice system.

“When your client is violating the gag order I expect more than one word,” Merchan said.

A conviction by the jury in the hush money probe would not preclude Trump from becoming president again, but because it is a state case, he would not be able to pardon himself if found guilty. The charge is punishable by up to four years in prison — though it’s not clear if the judge would seek to put him behind bars.

The Supreme Court’s arguments, meanwhile, are related to charges in federal court in Washington, where Trump has been accused of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. The case stems from Trump’s attempts to have charges against him dismissed. Lower courts have found he cannot claim immunity for actions that, prosecutors say, illegally sought to interfere with the election results.

The high court is moving faster than usual in taking up the case, though not as quickly as special counsel Jack Smith wanted, raising questions about whether there will be time to hold a trial before the November election, if the justices agree with lower courts that Trump can be prosecuted.

NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. births fell last year, resuming a long national slide.

A little under 3.6 million babies were born in 2023, according to provisional statistics released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s about 76,000 fewer than the year before and the lowest one-year tally since 1979.

U.S. births were slipping for more than a decade before COVID-19 hit, then dropped 4% from 2019 to 2020. They ticked up for two straight years after that, an increase experts attributed, in part, to pregnancies that couples had put off amid the pandemic’s early days.

But “the 2023 numbers seem to indicate that bump is over and we’re back to the trends we were in before,” said Nicholas Mark, a University of Wisconsin researcher who studies how social policy and other factors influence health and fertility.

Birth rates have long been falling for teenagers and younger women, but rising for women in their 30s and 40s — a reflection of women pursuing education and careers before trying to start families, experts say. But last year, birth rates fell for all women younger than 40, and were flat for women in their 40s.

Mark called that development surprising and said “there’s some evidence that not just postponement is going on.”

Rates fell across almost all racial and ethnic groups.

The numbers released Thursday are based on more than 99.9% of the birth certificates filed in 2023, but they are provisional and the final birth count can change as they are finalized. For example, the provisional 2022 birth count appeared to show a dip, but ended up being higher than 2021’s tally when the analysis was completed.

There could be an adjustment to the 2023 data, but it won’t be enough to erase the “sizeable” decline seen in the provisional numbers, said the CDC’s Brady Hamilton, the new report’s first author.

Experts have wondered how births might be affected by the June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed states to ban or restrict abortion. Experts estimate that nearly half of pregnancies are unintended, so limits to abortion access could affect the number of births.

The new report indicates that the decision didn’t lead to a national increase in births, but the researchers didn’t analyze birth trends in individual states or dissect data among all demographic groups.

The new data does raise the possibility of an impact on teens. The U.S. teen birth rate has been falling decades, but the decline has been less dramatic in recent years, and the drop seems to have stopped for teen girls ages 15 to 17.

“That could be Dobbs,” said Dr. John Santelli, a Columbia University professor of population and family health and pediatrics. Or it could be related to changes in sex education or access to contraception, he added.

Whatever the case, the flattening of birth rates for high school students is worrisome and indicates that “whatever we’re doing for kids in middle and high school is faltering,” Santelli said.

More findings from the report:

—From 2022 to 2023, the provisional number of births fell 5% for American Indian and Alaska Native women, 4% for Black women, 3% for white women and 2% for Asian American women. Births rose 1% for Hispanic women.

—The percentage of babies born preterm held about steady.

—The cesarean section birth rate rose again, to 32.4% of births. Some experts worry that C-sections are done more often than medically necessary.

—The U.S. was once among only a few developed countries with a fertility rate that ensured each generation had enough children to replace itself — about 2.1 kids per woman. But it’s been sliding, and in 2023 dropped to about 1.6, the lowest rate on record.

Surveys suggest many U.S. couples would prefer to have two or more kids but see housing, job security and the cost of child care as significant obstacles to having more children.

“There’s something getting in the way of them being able to achieve those goals,” Mark said.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

WASHINGTON (AP) — On the left and right, Supreme Court justices seem to agree on a basic truth about the American system of government: No one is above the law, not even the president.

“The law applies equally to all persons, including a person who happens for a period of time to occupy the Presidency,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in 2020.

Less than a year earlier, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, then a federal trial judge, wrote, “Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings.”

But former President Donald Trump and his legal team are putting that foundational belief to the test on Thursday when the high court takes up Trump’s bid to avoid prosecution over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.

Trump’s lawyers argue that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for their official acts. Otherwise, they say, politically motivated prosecutions of former occupants of the Oval Office would become routine and presidents couldn’t function as the commander-in-chief if they had to worry about criminal charges.

Lower courts so far have rejected those arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on an appeals court in Washington, D.C. And even if the high court resoundingly follows suit, the timing of its decision may be as important as the outcome. That’s because Trump has been pushing to delay the trial until after the November election, and the later the justices issue their decision, the more likely he is to succeed.

The court typically issues its last opinions by the end of June, which is roughly four months before the election.

The election interference conspiracy case brought by special counsel Jack Smith in Washington is just one of four criminal cases confronting Trump, the first former president to face prosecution. He already is standing trial in New York on charges that he falsified business records to keep damaging information from voters when he directed payments to a former porn star to keep quiet her claims that they had a sexual encounter.

Smith’s team says the men who wrote Constitution never intended for presidents to be above the law and that, in any event, the acts Trump is charged with — including participating in a scheme to enlist fake electors in battleground states won by Biden — aren’t in any way part of a president’s official duties.

Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from a district attorney’s subpoena for his financial records. That case played out during Trump’s presidency and involved a criminal investigation, but no charges.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who would have prevented the enforcement of the subpoena because of Trump’s responsibilities as president, still rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity and pointed to the text of the Constitution and how it was understood by the people who ratified it.

“The text of the Constitution … does not afford the President absolute immunity,” Thomas wrote in 2020.

The lack of apparent support on the court for the sort of blanket immunity Trump seeks has caused commentators to speculate about why the court has taken up the case in the first place.

Phillip Bobbitt, a constitutional scholar at Columbia University’s law school, said he worries about the delay, but sees value in a decision that amounts to “a definitive expression by the Supreme Court that we are a government of laws and not of men.”

The court also may be more concerned with how its decision could affect future presidencies, Harvard law school professor Jack Goldsmith wrote on the Lawfare blog.

But Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the court never should have taken the case because an ideologically diverse panel of the federal appeals court in Washington adequately addressed the issues.

“If it was going to take the case, it should have proceeded faster, because now, it will most likely prevent the trial from being completed before the election. Even Richard Nixon said that the American people deserve to know whether their president is a crook. The Supreme Court seems to disagree,” Roosevelt said.

The court has several options for deciding the case. The justices could reject Trump’s arguments and unfreeze the case so that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan can resume trial preparations, which she has indicated may last up to three months.

The court could end Smith’s prosecution by declaring for the first time that former presidents may not be prosecuted for official acts they took while in office.

It also might spell out when former presidents are shielded for prosecution and either declare that Trump’s alleged conduct easily crossed the line or return the case to Chutkan so that she can decide whether Trump should have to stand trial.

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — A U.S. Army reservist who sounded the clearest warning ahead of Maine’s deadliest mass shooting is expected to answer questions Thursday from the commission investigating the tragedy.

Six weeks before Robert Card killed 18 people at a bar and bowling alley in Lewiston, his best friend and fellow reservist Sean Hodgson texted their supervisors, telling them to change the passcode to the gate at their Army Reserve training facility and arm themselves if Card showed up.

“I believe he’s going to snap and do a mass shooting,” Hodgson wrote on Sept. 15.

That message came months after relatives had warned police that Card had grown paranoid and said they were concerned about his access to guns. The failure of authorities to remove guns from Card’s possession in the weeks before the shooting has become the subject of a monthslong investigation in the state, which also has passed new gun safety laws since the tragedy.

Card also was hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital for two weeks in July, and the Army barred him from having weapons while on duty. But aside from briefly staking out the reserve center and visiting Card’s home, authorities declined to confront him. He was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound two days after the shootings.

In an interim report released last month, the independent commission launched by Gov. Jane Mills concluded that the Sagadahoc County sheriff’s office had probable cause under Maine’s “yellow flag” law to take Card into custody and seize his guns. It also criticized police for not following up with Hodgson about his warning text.

On Thursday, the commission plans to hear from the state’s director of victim witnesses services. Hodgson told The Associated Press he is scheduled to be questioned Thursday morning.

In an exclusive series of interviews in January, Hodgson told The AP he met Card in the Army Reserve in 2006 and that they became close friends after both divorced their spouses around the same time. They lived together for about a month in 2022, and when Card was hospitalized in New York in July, Hodgson drove him back to Maine.

Growing increasingly worried about his friend’s mental health, Hodgson warned authorities after an incident in which Card started “flipping out” after a night of gambling, pounding the steering wheel and nearly crashing multiple times. After ignoring his pleas to pull over, Card punched him in the face, Hodgson said.

“It took me a lot to report somebody I love,” he said. “But when the hair starts standing up on the back of your neck, you have to listen.”

Some officials downplayed Hodgson’s warning, suggesting he might have been drunk because of the late hour of his text. Army Reserve Capt. Jeremy Reamer described him as “not the most credible of our soldiers” and said his message should be taken “with a grain of salt.”

Hodgson said he struggles with post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol addiction but said he wasn’t drinking that night and was awake because he works nights and was waiting for his boss to call.

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The man who fatally shot retired NFL star Will Smith during a confrontation following a car crash in 2016 is scheduled for sentencing Thursday in a New Orleans courtroom.

It’s the second time Cardell Hayes, 36, has faced sentencing in Smith’s death. He was convicted of manslaughter in December 2016 and later sentenced to 25 years. But the jury vote had been 10-2 and the conviction was later tossed after the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed such non-unanimous verdicts.

Hayes was released on bond after having served more than four years of the original sentence. He remained free during multiple retrial delays, some due to the COVID-19 pandemic. But he was taken back into custody following the unanimous Jan. 27 verdict and has been awaiting sentencing at the New Orleans jail.

Smith was shot eight times — seven times in the back — during a confrontation with Hayes that happened after Hayes’ SUV struck the rear of Smith’s vehicle.

Hayes has long said he fired in self-defense. He said he fired only because he believed a drunken and belligerent Smith had retrieved a gun from his SUV. He insisted on the stand that he heard a “pop” before he started shooting and that he did not shoot at Smith’s wife, Racquel, who was hit in the legs.

Evidence showed Smith was intoxicated at the time of the confrontation. But there was no witness or forensic evidence to back up Hayes’ claim that Smith had wielded or fired a weapon. At the January retrial, defense attorney John Fuller did not call Hayes to testify, but insisted prosecutors had failed to prove Hayes didn’t fire in self-defense.

The overturned verdicts from the 2016 jury also included an attempted manslaughter conviction in the wounding of Racquel Smith. Hayes was acquitted of that charge at January’s second trial.

Smith, a 34-year-old father of three, was a defensive leader on the Saints team that lifted spirits in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina devastated the city in 2005. He helped carry the team to a winning season in 2006 and a Super Bowl victory in 2010.

Hayes, who owned a tow truck business, once played semi-pro football and is the father of a young son.

NEW YORK (AP) — Legislation forcing TikTok’s parent company to sell the video-sharing platform or face a ban in the U.S. received President Joe Biden’s official signoff Wednesday. But the newly minted law could be in for an uphill battle in court.

Critics of the sell-or-be-banned ultimatum argue it violates TikTok users’ First Amendment rights. The app’s China-based owner, ByteDance, has already promised to sue, calling the measure unconstitutional.

But a court challenge’s success is not is not guaranteed. The law’s opponents, which include advocacy organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, maintain that the government hasn’t come close to justifying banning TikTok, while others say national-security claims could still prevail.

For years, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data, or influence Americans by suppressing or promoting certain content on TikTok. The U.S. has yet to provide public evidence to support those claims, but some legal experts note that political pressures have piled up regardless.

If upheld, legal experts also stress that the law could set a precedent carrying wider ramifications for digital media in the U.S.

Here’s what you need to know.

That’s the central question. TikTok and opponents of the law have argued that a ban would violate First Amendment rights of the social media platform’s 170 million U.S. users.

Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said a TikTok ban would “stifle free expression and restrict public access” to a platform that has become central source for information sharing.

Among key questions will be whether the legislation interferes with the overall content of speech on TikTok, notes Elettra Bietti, an assistant professor of law and computer science at Northeastern University, because content-based restrictions meet a higher level of scrutiny.

ByteDance had yet to officially file a lawsuit by late Wednesday, but Bietti said she expects the company’s challenge to primarily focus on whether a ban infringes on these wider free-speech rights. Additional litigation involving TikTok’s “commercial actors,” such as businesses and influencers who make their living on the platform, may also arise, she added.

TikTok is expressing confidence about the prospects of its planned challenge.

“Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere,” TikTok CEO Shou Chew said in a video response posted to X Wednesday. “The facts and the Constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail again.”

Toomey also said that he is optimistic about the possibility of TikTok being able to block the measure in court, noting that both users and the company “have extremely strong” First Amendment claims.

“Many of the calls to completely ban TikTok in the U.S. are about scoring political points and rooted in anti-China sentiment,” Toomey added. “And to date, these steps to ban TikTok had not been remotely supported by concrete public evidence.”

Still, the future of any litigation is hard to predict, especially for this kind of case. And from a legal perspective, legal experts say it can be difficult to cite political motivations, even if they’re well-documented, as grounds to invalidate a law.

The battle could also string along for some time, with the potential for appeals that could go all the way to the Supreme Court, which would likely uphold the law due to its current composition, said Gus Hurwitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School.

TikTok’s legal challenge won’t go on without a fight. The government will probably respond with national-security claims, which were already cited prominently as the legislation made its way through Congress.

Toomey maintains that the government hasn’t met the high bar required to prove imminent national-security risks, but some other legal experts note that it’s still a strong card to play.

“One of the unfortunate and really frustrating things about national-security legislation (is that) it tends to be a trump card,” Hurwitz said. “Once national-security issues come up, they’re going to carry the day either successfully or not.”

Hurwitz added that he thinks there are legitimate national-security arguments that could be brought up here. National security can be argued because it’s a federal measure, he added. That sets this scenario apart from previously unsuccessful state-level legislation seeking to ban TikTok, such as in Montana.

But national-security arguments are also vulnerable to questioning as to why TikTok is getting specific scrutiny.

“Personally, I believe that what TikTok does isn’t that different from other companies that are U.S.-based,” Bietti said, pointing to tech giants ranging from Google to Amazon. “The question is, ‘Why ban TikTok and not the activities and the surveillance carried out by other companies in the United States?’”

Still, legal experts note that there could be repercussions beyond TikTok in the future.

The measure was passed as part of a larger $95 billion package that provides aid to Ukraine and Israel. The package also includes a provision that makes it illegal for data brokers to sell or rent “personally identifiable sensitive data” to North Korea, China, Russia, Iran or entities in those countries.

That has encountered some pushback, including from the ACLU, which says the language is written too broadly and could sweep in journalists and others who publish personal information.

“There’s real reason to be concerned that the use of this law will not stop with TikTok,” Toomey said. “Looking at that point and the bigger picture, banning TikTok or forcing its sale would be a devastating blow to the U.S. government’s decades of work promoting an open and secure global internet.”

By Amina Niasse

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The number of births in the United States fell by 2% in 2023 from the previous year, driven in part by a marked birth rate decline among older teenagers and women aged 20-24, according to a report from the CDC released on Thursday.

The number of births in the U.S. fell to 3,591,328 in 2023 from 3,667,758 the year prior, according to provisional National Centers for Health Statistics (NCHS) data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The decline puts the U.S. back on trend with the 2% decline seen in 2015-2020. In 2021, births rose 1%. The birth rate in 2022 was flat with the prior year.

Among women aged 25-34 years, who accounted for more than 2 million births in 2023, the birth rate fell about 2.5%, while births among women aged 20-24 years fell by 4% to a record low rate.

U.S. birth rates for teenagers aged 18-19 years fell 3%, also a record low, while the rate among teenagers aged 15-17 years was flat. Teen births have been falling since 2007.

“The decline in (teenage) birth rates has been quite phenomenal,” Dr. Brady Hamilton, co-author of the report, said in an interview.

“For younger teens, it still has more to go in terms of decline,” he said. “These are young women who are in the process of acquiring an education and preparing for the future.”

Births declined for all races except Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander women, for whom the number of births was basically flat. Black and Native American women experienced the largest birth declines, by 4% and 5%, respectively.

For women of Hispanic origin, births rose by 1%.

There was an uptick in deliveries by cesarean section last year, tracking with the rising average age of mothers, co-author Michelle Osterman, a health statistician at NCHS said.

The rate of infants delivered by cesarean section rose moderately for the fourth-consecutive year to 32.4%, the highest since 2013, up from 32.1% in 2022, the report said.

“We do know that older women tend to more have difficulties during delivering so it could be influenced by the increase in maternal age,” said Osterman. “And ‘low-risk’ (cesarean) doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not medically significant.”

(Reporting by Amina Niasse; editing by Caroline Humer and Michael Erman)