Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Shareholders Call on Wells Fargo to Address Climate-Related Litigation Risk
OAKLAND, California, April 27 -- As You Sow Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Shareholders Call on Wells Fargo to Address Climate-Related Litigation Risk
As climate science advances, entities contributing to high-carbon activities face growing legal exposure
EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA - On April 28, Wells Fargo shareholders will vote on a new proposal addressing a critical and underexamined material risk: legal liability for its financing of high-carbon activities.
Wells Fargo made headlines last year for abandoning its financed emissions targets and disclosures. As the only
... Show Full Article
OAKLAND, California, April 27 -- As You Sow Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Shareholders Call on Wells Fargo to Address Climate-Related Litigation Risk
As climate science advances, entities contributing to high-carbon activities face growing legal exposure
EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA - On April 28, Wells Fargo shareholders will vote on a new proposal addressing a critical and underexamined material risk: legal liability for its financing of high-carbon activities.
Wells Fargo made headlines last year for abandoning its financed emissions targets and disclosures. As the onlymajor U.S. bank to take this backward step, Wells Fargo has exposed itself to growing responsibility for climate-related damages. Given this risk and the bank's continued financing of fossil fuels, As You Sow and the U.S. Presbyterian Church urge Wells Fargo to evaluate and disclose its exposure to climate-related litigation risk from its financing of high-carbon activities.
Advances in climate attribution science now allow courts to quantify not only a companies' contribution to climate change over time, but also the percentage of additional damages attributable to climate change.
"This ability to quantify and assign legal responsibility for historical climate contributions and specific storm damages means that profiting from the funding of high-carbon activities is no longer a free-ride," said Danielle Fugere, President & Chief Counsel of shareholder representative As You Sow. "For too long, companies have been able to emit greenhouse gases or fund greenhouse gas emitters without consequence. That is no longer the case. Companies cannot rest easy simply because the law in the U.S. hasn't yet caught up to other forums. Climate attribution science is backward looking, quantifying a company's total contribution to climate change over time. This means that every new dollar invested in producing high-carbon products and activities can lead to additional legal liability."
European banks BNP Paribas and ING Bank have already been sued for violating duty-of- care principles through their financing of high-carbon sectors. Other climate litigation is ongoing worldwide. Wells Fargo has provided over $143.4 billion in financing for high-emitting activities from 2021 to 2024 alone, exposing the bank to potential litigation. As climate-related storms, fires, floods, droughts, and disease ravage communities and their property, legal risk builds for all climate-responsible parties.
"By rolling back its climate targets and disclosures, Wells Fargo has made itself vulnerable to climate-related litigation," said Fugere.
"Since major financiers of high-emitting activities could face legal claims, shareholders need to know if Wells Fargo is assessing its exposure to this financially material risk, and how it understands the level of risk," said Mary Zuccarello, Senior Climate & Energy Associate at As You Sow.
Investors are now calling on Wells Fargo to provide a comprehensive assessment and disclosure of climate-related litigation risks. That transparency is essential for shareholders to assess Wells Fargo's risk management strategy, especially as benchmarked against other banks that have climate goals and transition plans in place.
About As You Sow
As You Sow is the nation's leading shareholder representative, with a 30-year track record promoting environmental and social corporate responsibility. Its focus areas include climate change, ocean plastics, toxins in the food system, the Rights of Nature, racial justice, and workplace diversity. Click here to view As You Sow's shareholder resolution tracker.
***
Original text here: https://www.asyousow.org/press-releases/2026/4/27/shareholders-call-on-wells-fargo-to-address-climate-related-litigation-risk
New Jersey Wells Fargo Bank Employees Formally Oust CWA Union Bosses
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, April 27 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
New Jersey Wells Fargo Bank Employees Formally Oust CWA Union Bosses
Branch is the latest in growing movement by Wells Fargo employees endeavoring to end union affiliation
Seaside Park, NJ - Employees at Wells Fargo's Seaside Park branch have successfully removed Communications Workers of America (CWA) union bosses from their workplace. The effort to remove the union was initiated when bank employee Lisa Sholtis filed a petition with the National Labor Relations
... Show Full Article
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, April 27 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
New Jersey Wells Fargo Bank Employees Formally Oust CWA Union Bosses
Branch is the latest in growing movement by Wells Fargo employees endeavoring to end union affiliation
Seaside Park, NJ - Employees at Wells Fargo's Seaside Park branch have successfully removed Communications Workers of America (CWA) union bosses from their workplace. The effort to remove the union was initiated when bank employee Lisa Sholtis filed a petition with the National Labor RelationsBoard (NLRB) seeking a "decertification" election to remove CWA union officials from the Seaside Park Wells Fargo location. Sholtis filed the petition for her coworkers with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering elections to install (or "certify") and remove (or "decertify") unions. Sholtis' petition was signed by enough of her Wells Fargo coworkers to prompt the NLRB to schedule a union decertification vote.
The workers requested that the NLRB schedule a secret-ballot election among all full-time and regular part-time tellers and personal bankers employed by Wells Fargo at the Seaside Park branch. The workers were looking to vote on whether to remove the so-called "Wells Fargo Workers United" union (an affiliate of the CWA union).
However, shortly before the election was scheduled by the NLRB, CWA union bosses declared that they "disclaim interest" in the Seaside Park Wells Fargo employees. CWA union officials, possibly anticipating an embarrassing election loss, abandoned their status as the workers' so-called "representatives."
"After nearly two years with the CWA doing little to nothing for employees at the Seaside Park Branch, we finally have our branch back," stated Sholtis.
New Jersey is one of the 24 states without Right to Work protections that make union affiliation and dues payment fully voluntary, meaning that Sholtis and her coworkers could have been forced to pay union dues or fees to union officials or else be fired once the employer entered into a union agreement with CWA.
The Seaside Park workers are the latest in a growing movement of Wells Fargo employees across the nation seeking to cast off their CWA "representatives." Last month, Foundation-assisted Wells Fargo employees in Spring Hill, Florida, and Casper, Wyoming, filed respective petitions to remove the CWA from their branches. More requests for help continue to come in.
In Spring Hill, Florida, CWA union bosses similarly moved to "disclaim interest" in the bank workers, removing themselves as the employees' monopoly bargaining "representatives," rather than facing a potentially humiliating decertification vote. In Casper, Wyoming, CWA union officials are seeking to disenfranchise employees by preventing them from even holding the vote. In yet another decertification effort, last month Wells Fargo employees in Apex, North Carolina, overwhelmingly voted to remove CWA union officials from their branch.
"We are pleased to be able to support Ms. Sholtis and her coworkers as they exercise their legal right to remove unwanted CWA union bosses," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "As the movement by Wells Fargo employees to eject the CWA spreads, the Foundation is ready to assist them in exercising their rights under federal law to hold votes to remove the unwanted union."
* * *
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/new-jersey-wells-fargo-cwa-04272026/
OMRF awarded $3.5 million to study ovarian aging
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, April 27 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
OMRF awarded $3.5 million to study ovarian aging
As women hit their mid-30s, ovaries begin to experience chronic, low-level inflammation. Although it's too faint to be felt, this inflammation foreshadows the end of their peak reproductive period and, years later, the onset of menopause.
Two Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation scientists have received a $3.5 million National Institutes of Health grant to study what triggers this inflammation. Their findings could ultimately help
... Show Full Article
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, April 27 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
OMRF awarded $3.5 million to study ovarian aging
As women hit their mid-30s, ovaries begin to experience chronic, low-level inflammation. Although it's too faint to be felt, this inflammation foreshadows the end of their peak reproductive period and, years later, the onset of menopause.
Two Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation scientists have received a $3.5 million National Institutes of Health grant to study what triggers this inflammation. Their findings could ultimately helpextend female fertility and delay menopause.
The National Institute on Aging, part of the NIH, awarded the five-year grant to Sarah Ocanas, Ph.D., and Michael Stout, Ph.D.
This new research will build on their discovery that specific immune cells begin to accumulate in the ovaries around the same time fertility begins to decline. That accumulation leads to inflammation.
Stout hopes the research will answer a fundamental biological question: "Does inflammation drive ovarian aging, or does ovarian aging trigger inflammation? Once we understand which comes first, we can begin looking for ways to intervene."
Ocanas will look at why aging begins earlier in ovaries than in the rest of the body. She believes it may be related to the monthly menstrual cycle.
"Each time an egg is released, the ovary must heal itself," she said. "Over decades, this repeated cycle of slight damage and repair may may lead to the chronic inflammation and scar tissue that are hallmarks of ovarian aging."
Determining the earliest age-related inflammation, the OMRF researchers believe, could lead to potential therapeutic targets to extend reproductive health and improve overall health as women age.
"You have to understand what's going on biologically - and why - before you can develop treatments," Stout said. "That's what this research is about."
Their grant is No. 1R01AG099844-01. Previous funding from the Global Consortium for Reproductive Longevity and Equality provided preliminary research that made the NIH grant possible.
***
Original text here: https://omrf.org/omrf-awarded-3-5-million-to-study-ovarian-aging/
Ninth Circuit Agrees to Review District Court's Attempt to Extend California Antitrust Law Nationwide
WASHINGTON, April 27 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Ninth Circuit Agrees to Review District Court's Attempt to Extend California Antitrust Law Nationwide
"Anointing California as the nation's antitrust enforcer undermines federalism and offends due process." -Cory L. Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
*
Earlier today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Altria Group Inc. leave to appeal a district court's class-certification order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 27 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Ninth Circuit Agrees to Review District Court's Attempt to Extend California Antitrust Law Nationwide
"Anointing California as the nation's antitrust enforcer undermines federalism and offends due process." -Cory L. Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
*
Earlier today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Altria Group Inc. leave to appeal a district court's class-certification order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). Theruling was a victory for Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), which submitted an amicus brief contending that the order violates federalism and due process by improperly applying California's Cartwright Act to out-of-state transactions and harms.
The case stems from Altria's 2018 investment in Juul Labs after independently shuttering its uncompetitive e-cigarette division amid losses and FDA scrutiny. Private plaintiffs allege that the investment and a related non-compete unfairly reduced competition. The district court certified a nationwide direct-purchaser class under federal antitrust law and two multistate indirect-purchaser classes under the Cartwright Act across 27 jurisdictions.
In its amicus brief (https://www.wlf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/26-2519-WLF-Amicus-Brief-In-re-Juul-23f-petition.pdf), WLF argued that the certification order flouts California's presumption against extraterritoriality and choice-of-law rules by imposing California's policies on other states. It also threatens due process by applying California law to claims with insufficient ties to the state. The state-by-state variations in antitrust laws pose insuperable obstacles rendering class litigation both unmanageable and unconstitutional.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/04/27/communicating/ninth-circuit-agrees-to-review-district-courts-attempt-to-extend-california-antitrust-law-nationwide/
WLF Lauds New Independent Contractor Rules Grounded in "Economic Reality"
WASHINGTON, April 27 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Lauds New Independent Contractor Rules Grounded in "Economic Reality"
"The Department's clear guidance is consistent with caselaw, keeps faith with the statute, and reflects economic reality." -Zac Morgan, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel
*
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to adopt proposed regulations clarifying when a worker must be classified as an employee or an independent contractor under federal labor law.
As administrations
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 27 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Lauds New Independent Contractor Rules Grounded in "Economic Reality"
"The Department's clear guidance is consistent with caselaw, keeps faith with the statute, and reflects economic reality." -Zac Morgan, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel
*
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to adopt proposed regulations clarifying when a worker must be classified as an employee or an independent contractor under federal labor law.
As administrationshave flipped, so has DOL's guidance. In 2021, the first Trump administration issued clarifying rules on this issue-and the subsequent Biden administration reversed those changes and imposed its own. Under Chevron deference, this was tolerable. Courts had to defer to "reasonable" administrative statutory constructions, even if they weren't the best. But a few months after the Biden rule took effect, the Supreme Court decided Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overruled Chevron. Now agencies must apply the best reading of a statute, consistent with Supreme Court caselaw and venerable canons of construction.
WLF's comment contends that the DOL's new regulations successfully thread that needle, while emphasizing that "economic independence should be the touchstone when assessing whether a worker is an independent contractor." WLF also praised the Department's decision for not just getting the law right, but for doing so clearly-reducing ambiguity and "brighten[ing] the lines."
* * *
Click here to read WLF's comment (https://www.wlf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/WLF-Comment-Independent-Contractor-or-Employee-Status-27apr2026.pdf).
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/04/27/communicating/wlf-lauds-new-independent-contractor-rules-grounded-in-economic-reality/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Research Consistently Shows E-Cigarettes Help Smokers Quit
LOS ANGELES, California, April 25 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on April 24, 2026, by Director of Consumer Freedom Guy Bentley:
* * *
Research consistently shows e-cigarettes help smokers quit. When will U.S. policy catch up?
When smokers who want to quit believe that switching to an e-cigarette offers no health benefit, they have no incentive to make the switch.
*
A sweeping new overview of the evidence on e-cigarettes and smoking cessation, published in the journal Addiction by researchers at the University of Oxford and Queen Mary University of London, should
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, April 25 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on April 24, 2026, by Director of Consumer Freedom Guy Bentley:
* * *
Research consistently shows e-cigarettes help smokers quit. When will U.S. policy catch up?
When smokers who want to quit believe that switching to an e-cigarette offers no health benefit, they have no incentive to make the switch.
*
A sweeping new overview of the evidence on e-cigarettes and smoking cessation, published in the journal Addiction by researchers at the University of Oxford and Queen Mary University of London, shouldput to rest any remaining doubts over whether e-cigarettes help smokers quit. They do.
The paper synthesized 14 systematic reviews encompassing hundreds of primary studies. Every single comparison pointed in the same direction. Nicotine e-cigarettes outperformed every other cessation intervention tested.
Compared with nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) such as gums and patches, e-cigarettes showed improved quit rates ranging from 17 to 67 percent. Compared with placebo or behavioral support alone, the advantage was even bigger. The authors concluded that claims that the evidence is "mixed" on this question are simply not supported by the data.
The analysis followed the same methodology as the Cochrane Review, which is itself considered one of the leading authorities on evidence-based medicine, and has consistently found that e-cigarettes are more effective than NRT. Back in 2024, an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, commenting on a large randomized controlled trial that found e-cigarettes nearly doubled quit rates compared with standard care, concluded that the evidence has now reached a tipping point and that the American medical community must acknowledge e-cigarettes are effective cessation tools.
Peter Shields, Emeritus Professor of Medical Oncology at Ohio State University, agrees. Responding to the Oxford review, he said the evidence from Cochrane and others is "very consistent," but that in the United States, this work is being ignored. "Too commonly, vaping is still viewed as something dangerous that should not be used as a smoking cessation tool," said Shields.
For decades, the tools available to help smokers quit, such as NRT, have been inadequate, with success rates often measuring in the single digits. But e-cigarettes, one of the most promising innovations for helping smokers escape cigarettes, have been consistently met with obstruction, regulatory paralysis, and deeply misleading public messaging from the very agencies charged with protecting public health.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has spent years denying market authorization to thousands of domestic e-cigarette products and failing to inform adult smokers of the potential benefits of switching to vaping. While the FDA squeezed out domestic e-cigarette manufacturers, illicit vapes from companies that have no inclination to cooperate with the agency on ensuring product quality and consumer safety standards flooded in to fill the gap. While Americans who already vape may have few qualms with where their products are coming from, it's those who still smoke and are fearful of trying something new who suffer from the FDA's obstinacy.
A majority of smokers still incorrectly believe vaping is no safer than smoking, a damaging misconception that the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have done precious little to correct. In reality, the largest evidence review on e-cigarettes ever conducted found they are dramatically safer than cigarettes.
The cost of this messaging failure is measured in the lives of those smokers who would otherwise have quit using cigarettes but failed to do so. Economist Alex Tabarrok has described the FDA's snail-like pace in pharmaceutical drug approvals as having created an "invisible graveyard," because those who would benefit from those drugs sometimes die waiting for their approval. The same is true for the FDA's approach to e-cigarettes.
When smokers who want to quit believe that switching to an e-cigarette offers no health benefit, they have no incentive to make the switch. The United Kingdom, by contrast, serves as an example of a country that has embraced the evidence backing e-cigarettes as safer alternatives. The National Health Service actively promotes e-cigarettes to smokers and has distributed free vape kits as part of its "swap to stop" program. In 2024, the number of vapers in the U.K. surpassed the number of smokers for the first time.
If we would like to see similar positive health outcomes in the United States, the FDA must first accelerate market authorization for e-cigarettes that appeal to smokers, which are, for the most part, products in non-tobacco flavors, and stop playing whack-a-mole with an illicit market of its own making. Second, the FDA must stop hedging and start communicating clearly to smokers and healthcare providers that switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes represents a significant reduction in health risk. Third, professional medical societies need to update their clinical guidance to reflect the evidence that e-cigarettes work, and clinicians should discuss them with patients who smoke.
Many of America's 25 million smokers haven't tried e-cigarettes because they've been told that there's no point. The only thing standing between smokers and a tool that could save their lives is an institutional culture of regulatory timidity and the public health community's reluctance to embrace any non-pharmaceutical or therapeutic path for cessation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/research-consistently-shows-e-cigarettes-help-smokers-quit-when-will-u-s-policy-catch-up/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Reggio Meets Axolotls
DETROIT, Michigan, April 25 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on April 24, 2026, by Kelsy Achtenberg, educator and the director at The Innovation School in Bismarck, North Dakota:
* * *
Reggio Meets Axolotls
Understanding grows with connected learning.
*
Recently, our school's younger class was given miniature axolotl figurines. If you aren't familiar, axolotls are cute salamanders that are all the rave right now. What began as a simple, fun surprise quickly turned into something much more.
Students started by designing homes for their axolotls. They
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, April 25 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on April 24, 2026, by Kelsy Achtenberg, educator and the director at The Innovation School in Bismarck, North Dakota:
* * *
Reggio Meets Axolotls
Understanding grows with connected learning.
*
Recently, our school's younger class was given miniature axolotl figurines. If you aren't familiar, axolotls are cute salamanders that are all the rave right now. What began as a simple, fun surprise quickly turned into something much more.
Students started by designing homes for their axolotls. Theystarted thinking about habitat, environment, and what their creatures might need to live. Then the ideas grew. Those tiny figurines became characters. Each student began creating a story about who their axolotl was, where it came from, and what adventures it might have. Soon, those individual ideas expanded even further as students began building entire communities. They started connecting their axolotls' worlds, creating shared spaces, relationships, and systems within them. Our teacher didn't hand them a worksheet or assign a prompt. Instead, she stepped in as a guide to help shape their ideas into stories, naturally weaving in lessons on story elements, spelling, and grammar along the way. What could have been a quick activity became a rich, integrated learning experience driven naturally and entirely by curiosity.
And it started with a small plastic axolotl.
Before we can improve school, we have to ask a deeper question: What is school actually for? For us at The Innovation School, that question didn't lead to a packaged curriculum or a scripted program. It led us to a philosophy that has shaped how we see children, learning, and the role of a teacher. That philosophy is the Reggio Emilia approach. It began after World War II in a small town in Italy, when a community led by educator Loris Malaguzzi set out to reimagine what education could be. After the destruction of the war, they wanted a system that wasn't built on compliance or rigidity. They wanted one built on curiosity, real-life experiences, and human potential. The belief is that children are already full of ideas, questions, and theories about the world. It means that we don't simplify learning; we trust that our students are capable, and we listen just as much as we teach.
It also shifts the role of the teacher. Instead of being the "sage on the stage" delivering information, the teacher becomes a guide who observes, asks questions, and provides materials and structure when needed. The classroom itself becomes part of the learning. In Reggio Emilia, it's often called the "third teacher." Spaces are intentionally designed to invite curiosity, materials are accessible, and learning is actually visible. You'll see projects in progress, collaboration happening naturally, and thinking documented everywhere. Learning isn't something that happens to students; rather, it's something they actively build.
Learning often begins with student interest instead of a fixed curriculum. We call this inquiry. A question during play can turn into a full inquiry. A small idea can grow into weeks of exploration. Students take on the role of researchers, designers, and problem-solvers. This is what happens when learning is allowed to grow instead of being rushed. Learning in this model is deeply social. Students aren't just absorbing content; they're also learning how to work through disagreements, listen to different perspectives, and build ideas together. In a mixed-age environment like ours, this happens even more naturally. Older students lead, and younger students observe and contribute. At the same time, learning is made visible through documentation. Teachers capture progress through photos, videos, and written reflections so that students and families can see what they are working on, and also to help students revisit and deepen their thinking. It sends a clear message: your thinking matters, and your learning is your own.
Another core idea from Loris Malaguzzi is the "hundred languages of children." This is the belief that students express understanding in many different ways. This isn't just through writing or tests, but through art, movement, building, storytelling, and discussion. Not every child shows what they know on a worksheet, and not every child thrives in silence and stillness. When we expand how students can show understanding, we expand who gets to feel successful in school.
Of course, this approach isn't without its critics. Some argue that without a fixed curriculum, students will have gaps in their learning. Others worry that it lacks structure, or that it depends too heavily on student interest. There's also a concern that this kind of environment doesn't prepare students for the "real world," where expectations, deadlines, and standards exist. These are fair concerns. But what we've found is that structure and flexibility are not opposites. They can, and should, exist together. Our students are still learning standards. They are still building foundational skills in math, reading, and writing. The difference is how they get there. Skills are taught in context, not isolation. One example of this in action is our students writing reviews of local food. They've been trying different bites and drinks from local restaurants and writing honest, yet respectful, reviews. Along the way, they're learning how to form opinions, support those opinions with reasons, and communicate clearly to an audience. What looks like a fun activity is actually rich literacy work where they are practicing writing structure, grammar, vocabulary, tone, and purpose in a way that feels real and meaningful. When learning is connected and meaningful, retention deepens and understanding grows.
As for the idea that students need constant external direction to succeed, we would argue the opposite. The real world doesn't hand you a worksheet and tell you exactly what to do next. It requires problem-solving, adaptability, collaboration, and initiative. These are the very skills this kind of environment develops. And while it may look less controlled from the outside, there is a great deal of intentionality behind it. Teachers are constantly observing, adjusting, guiding, and ensuring that students are progressing. It's not a lack of structure. It's a different kind of structure that is responsive rather than rigid.
Being inspired by the Reggio Emilia approach gives us a foundation we continually return to. It provides a way to ground our decisions and reflect on our practices. Not everything we do follows the approach exactly, but it offers a clear path forward. It reminds us to see children as capable, to let curiosity lead, and to design learning that is active, social, and meaningful.
And sometimes, it starts with something as small as an axolotl.
* * *
Kelsy Achtenberg is an educator and the director at The Innovation School in Bismarck, North Dakota. With 15 years of teaching experience and a Master's degree in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, she specializes in hands-on, project-based learning that helps students connect classroom learning to the real world.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/reggio-meets-axolotls/
WLF Asks Supreme Court to Review False Claims Act's Unconstitutional Qui Tam Provisions
WASHINGTON, April 24 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Asks Supreme Court to Review False Claims Act's Unconstitutional Qui Tam Provisions
*
"Congress cannot delegate core executive power to unaccountable private bounty hunters seeking personal gain."
-Cory L. Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
Click here for WLF's brief.
(Washington, DC)-Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in a case challenging the constitutionality of the False Claims Act's qui
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 24 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Asks Supreme Court to Review False Claims Act's Unconstitutional Qui Tam Provisions
*
"Congress cannot delegate core executive power to unaccountable private bounty hunters seeking personal gain."
-Cory L. Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
Click here for WLF's brief.
(Washington, DC)-Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in a case challenging the constitutionality of the False Claims Act's quitam provisions. WLF contends that these provisions unconstitutionally allow private relators to exercise the President's executive authority without any meaningful oversight.
The case stems from a qui tam suit by serial relator Ronald J. Streck against Eli Lilly & Company. Streck alleged that Lilly violated Medicaid's obscure rebate rules through its interpretation of Average Manufacturer Price. Despite Lilly's repeated disclosures to the government and prior judicial decisions deeming its position reasonable, a jury found for Streck, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed a nearly $200 million judgment.
In its amicus brief, WLF argues that the FCA's qui tam regime violates Article II's Vesting, Appointments, and Take Care Clauses by empowering self-appointed private citizens to prosecute public rights for personal profit. This privatized enforcement threatens the unitary executive, invites abusive litigation against businesses, and undermines constitutional separation of powers. WLF urges the Supreme Court to grant the petition for certiorari to resolve these pressing Article II questions.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/04/24/communicating/wlf-asks-supreme-court-to-review-false-claims-acts-unconstitutional-qui-tam-provisions/
Virginia Lawmakers Affirm Critical Legislation on Conservation, Clean Water
ANNAPOLIS, Maryland, April 24 -- The Chesapeake Bay Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Virginia Lawmakers Affirm Critical Legislation on Conservation, Clean Water
*
Virginians will see new protections against "forever chemicals," bolstered climate resilience, and new funding for efforts like flood prevention-but still await a final budget-after lawmakers this week formally acted on Governor Abigail Spanberger's proposed amendments to and vetoes of legislation passed during the 2026 legislative session..
Governor Spanberger this month signed into law a number of bills on topics
... Show Full Article
ANNAPOLIS, Maryland, April 24 -- The Chesapeake Bay Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Virginia Lawmakers Affirm Critical Legislation on Conservation, Clean Water
*
Virginians will see new protections against "forever chemicals," bolstered climate resilience, and new funding for efforts like flood prevention-but still await a final budget-after lawmakers this week formally acted on Governor Abigail Spanberger's proposed amendments to and vetoes of legislation passed during the 2026 legislative session..
Governor Spanberger this month signed into law a number of bills on topicsranging from chemical pollution to wetlands protection that the Chesapeake Bay Foundation supported during the 2026 session. Those include:
* PFAS. Measures the governor signed into law ahead of the reconvened session include bills that will require sewage sludge used in fertilizer to be tested for PFAS, or "forever chemicals," and banned if they test positive for certain thresholds, will require wastewater treatment plants to monitor PFAS, and will allow localities to test for PFAS in biosolids.
It is now up to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and other agencies to implement and enforce measures like these.
Lawmakers and the general public also need to stay vigilant: the Virginia Department of Health just this month issued a fish consumption advisory for the Occoquan watershed due to elevated PFAS levels in certain fish species like largemouth bass and bluegill sunfish.
* RGGI. The governor this month signed a measure that ensures a swift re-entry into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a regional carbon trading program for power plants that generates revenue used for priorities like flood preparedness that former Governor Glenn Youngkin exited in 2023.
Commonwealth officials are currently working to formally re-join the group in the coming months. Virginia could rejoin quarterly auctions, which generate proceeds from participating states from emissions allowances purchased by power plants, later this year.
RGGI has been a vital source of funding for priorities like flood preparedness and energy efficiency for low-income residents. CBF will closely monitor the Commonwealth's return to the program after its unfortunate - and legally dubious - exit during the previous administration.
Unfortunately, the biennial budget process has been delayed, putting key investments into clean water priorities at risk. We are urging lawmakers to include sufficient funding for the following items, among others:
* Menhaden. CBF supports including funding for long-overdue research into the menhaden population in the Chesapeake Bay amid intensifying warning signs and the high amount of harvest from the industrial fishery. Virginia has put off this research for nearly three years amid industry delay tactics. Atlantic menhaden are a critical food source for a variety of species including striped bass, redfish, humpback whales, and birds like osprey and bald eagles. Their abundance directly affects commercial and recreational fisheries, tourism, and coastal communities.
* Wastewater treatment plant funding. These investments that have enabled ongoing modernization of wastewater treatment plants have greatly reduced pollution to the Chesapeake Bay.
* Virginia Conservation Assistance Program. VCAP helps private property owners and community groups install a host of conservation that cut stormwater pollution.
* Virginia Agricultural Cost-Share Program. The Virginia Agricultural Cost-Share Program helps farmers install projects that reduce pollution to local waterways and, ultimately, the Chesapeake Bay.
* Community forestry. CBF urges lawmakers to include funding for two community forestry positions within the Department of Forestry. Federal funding cuts have threatened Virginia's Urban and Community Forestry program, which administers grants, provides expertise, and supports community efforts to plant and protect trees.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation Virginia Policy Manager Jay Ford issued the following statement:
"Virginia's elected leaders notched major wins during the 2026 session on cutting down toxic pollution in our waterways and bolstering climate resilience, but now comes the heavy lifting.
"On PFAS, we must ensure that DEQ and other state agencies properly implement and enforce the new regulations on the books. Virginia must continue to strengthen the law to keep the harmful chemicals out of our fertilizer and waterways.
"On RGGI, Virginia must ensure that the Commonwealth is getting its fair share from quarterly allowance auctions - and that the proceeds are directed where they are needed most for efforts like making homes more energy efficient and steeling communities against flood risk.
"Lawmakers also have a tremendous opportunity, through the biennial budget, to include new investments in priorities like menhaden research, wastewater treatment, and conservation programs. Investing in these now will be good for the economy and our public health, and will help protect what we all love about the Commonwealth over the next two years and beyond."
***
Original text here: https://www.cbf.org/news/virginia-lawmakers-affirm-critical-legislation-on-conservation-clean-water/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Trump's Medical Marijuana Rescheduling is Historic--But Many Questions Remain
LOS ANGELES, California, April 24 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on April 23, 2026, by Managing Director of Drug Policy Michelle Minton and Research Director Geoffrey Lawrence:
* * *
Trump's medical marijuana rescheduling is historic--but many questions remain
In a move that would have seemed unthinkable a decade ago, the Trump administration has officially rescheduled state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed the order Thursday, delivering on President Trump's December directive and bypassing the
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, April 24 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on April 23, 2026, by Managing Director of Drug Policy Michelle Minton and Research Director Geoffrey Lawrence:
* * *
Trump's medical marijuana rescheduling is historic--but many questions remain
In a move that would have seemed unthinkable a decade ago, the Trump administration has officially rescheduled state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed the order Thursday, delivering on President Trump's December directive and bypassing theusual Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) review process via an international treaty provision.
The move is historic and arguably the most significant federal action on marijuana since Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in 1970. It legitimizes 40 state medical marijuana programs, allows medical marijuana companies to claim federal tax deductions on the same basis as other companies, and eases research barriers. But it does not imply full legalization and leaves a number of unanswered questions for state-licensed marijuana businesses, vendors, investors, patients, and consumers of marijuana products.
The order sidesteps a potentially significant obstacle by including "marijuana in any form covered by a state medical marijuana license." Normally, a Schedule III designation is reserved for pharmaceutical products that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the order does include "FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana." Since the FDA requires years of testing and typically allows only one potentially active molecule to be tested at a time, restricting FDA approval to only FDA-approved products would have effectively left almost no pathway for the majority of existing products to become legal.
Medical marijuana operators receive equitable tax treatment from the order, which will allow them to deduct ordinary business expenses from their tax liability--a practice denied to businesses "trafficking" in Schedule I substances, even with state authorization.
Research into cannabis and cannabinoids will also become easier, allowing universities and other institutions to study these compounds without risking federal funding. In particular, research can be done with the types of marijuana patients actually consume rather than marijuana provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which testing has revealed to be genetically dissimilar. The order also establishes an expedited process for DEA registration, which is now required for any entity that handles Schedule III substances, including dispensaries.
However, recreational marijuana consumers and businesses gain no relief. Cannabis for non-medical use remains Schedule I, and possession without a state-issued medical authorization remains a federal crime.
Many questions also remain, including how the federal law will treat dispensaries authorized by their state to dispense medical marijuana alongside recreational products. In Washington state, for example, 302 of 460 licensed adult-use marijuana retailers are authorized to sell tax-free cannabis to registered medical marijuana patients. The order provides no guidance on inventory segregation or liability. There is also no clear direction on whether licensees could segregate these lines of business in their tax filings, in which ordinary business expenses are allowable under one group of products but not the other. For instance, would a dual licensee be barred from claiming business deductions when they traffic in any amount of recreational marijuana?
The legality of medical marijuana products and their possession also remains ambiguous. For Schedule III drugs, like ketamine, federal law requires a DEA-registered practitioner's prescription for legal possession. But there is no FDA-approved medical marijuana flower, edible, or vape cartridge. The order legalizes sale by state-licensed dispensaries but creates no explicit federal immunity for possession by patients. A patient with a state card may be tolerated, but not legally protected.
Another uncertainty is the degree to which financial institutions will cooperate with the new rules. Moving medical marijuana to Schedule III removes some legal risks and significant compliance costs for banks and insurers who might work with state marijuana licensees. But federal regulators, like the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, have not yet issued guidance. Until they do, many financial institutions may choose to stay on the sidelines, leaving operators undercapitalized and reliant on cash-based transactions.
How the order will affect interstate commerce is perhaps the most significant uncertainty the order creates. Because medical marijuana is now federally authorized, state laws banning the import or export of such products will likely be deemed unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause. We have argued that these laws were already unconstitutional because only Congress can regulate trade between the states. Federal illegality of the underlying products made this otherwise straightforward conclusion murky, but now that medical marijuana is federally legal, state laws interfering in interstate commerce are unambiguously unconstitutional. A dispensary in Oregon can now argue that it has the right to ship to a registered patient in California, just as a cultivator or manufacturer can argue it can ship to a licensed retailer in a different state. Such claims will likely force federal courts to strike down existing state laws banning interstate commerce in these products.
This is a historic shift--there is no question. It's the end of the era where marijuana is deemed more dangerous than cocaine, and it's a big win for patients and businesses. The order goes as far as it can within the bounds of the CSA and international treaties, but will surely leave recreational consumers disappointed. Going further will require a full rescheduling hearing, which the order also sets in motion to be concluded by July 15. If that hearing doesn't result in broader rescheduling or descheduling, such a move may require an act of Congress. However, Congressional marijuana reform has proven elusive, regardless of which political party is in power.
* * *
Michelle Minton is the managing director of drug policy at Reason Foundation.
Geoffrey Lawrence is research director at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/trump-medical-marijuana-rescheduling-historic-questions-remain/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Bailing Out Spirit Airlines Would Not Help Taxpayers, Travelers or the Airline Industry
LOS ANGELES, California, April 24 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on April 23, 2026, by senior transportation policy analyst Marc Scribner:
* * *
Bailing out Spirit Airlines would not help taxpayers, travelers or the airline industry
This week, The Wall Street Journal and others are reporting that the Trump administration is in advanced negotiations to provide up to $500 million in government financing to troubled Spirit Airlines. According to the reporting, this taxpayer-backed loan would be secured by warrants that give the U.S. government the option to purchase an
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, April 24 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on April 23, 2026, by senior transportation policy analyst Marc Scribner:
* * *
Bailing out Spirit Airlines would not help taxpayers, travelers or the airline industry
This week, The Wall Street Journal and others are reporting that the Trump administration is in advanced negotiations to provide up to $500 million in government financing to troubled Spirit Airlines. According to the reporting, this taxpayer-backed loan would be secured by warrants that give the U.S. government the option to purchase anequity stake in the company at a fixed price.
Bloomberg reported that exercising these warrants could allow the government to own up to 90% of the air carrier when it emerges from bankruptcy.
Bailing out Spirit, or any other failing budget airline, is a tremendously bad deal for taxpayers.
Spirit Airlines has twice filed for bankruptcy in recent years and is weighed down by low customer demand, high debt, and a tarnished public reputation. As a private company, Spirit should bear these risks, since only its shareholders and private lenders stand to benefit if Spirit is able to revitalize itself and avoid liquidation, which appears unlikely. A government loan, or even worse, government ownership, merely transfers these risks to taxpayers.
While noncommittal to the bailout at the time, White House spokesman Kush Desai argued that Spirit "would be on a much firmer financial footing had the Biden administration not recklessly blocked the airline's merger with JetBlue," another troubled budget airline. This is a fair point, but actions have consequences, and this does not justify a bailout that harms taxpayers in a futile attempt to alter the past.
The day before this news leaked, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy told Reuters, "What we don't want to do is put good money after bad, and there's been a lot of money thrown at Spirit, and they haven't found their way into profitability. And so would we just forestall the inevitable and then own that?"
Secretary Duffy is right, and it is good that a senior administrative official is there to provide clear thinking, but it is little solace to taxpayers if the move goes ahead. What is the benefit of perpetuating a financial zombie like Spirit Airlines? There's certainly none for taxpayers, who would ultimately be responsible for this bad investment.
"This is an absolutely terrible idea," and the "government doesn't know a damn thing about running a failed budget airline," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, tweeted.
The airline industry has long been characterized by low profit margins and volatility. For these reasons, legendary investor Warren Buffett has notably avoided purchasing airline stocks. Former American Airlines CEO Bob Crandall famously told his employees not to invest their money in the airline industry.
Low-cost carriers (LCCs) and ultra low-cost carriers (ULCCs) had bucked that trend in recent decades, earning steady operating profits even when their legacy competitors were in the red. This was due to the lean, agile business models of LCCs, and especially ULCCs like Spirit.
The ultra low-cost carriers bet that cutting out creature comforts to trim costs would attract a large volume of bargain-hunting leisure travelers willing to sacrifice convenience for the lowest possible airfares. This worked until it didn't.
When air travel came roaring back after the COVID-19 pandemic, customers tended to demand more premium options. Demand for first- and business-class seating on legacy network carriers surged, as those carriers continued to see major gains from their diversified financial products, such as co-branded credit cards.
The no-frills airlines were poorly suited for this sudden change in customer taste. This may well prove temporary, as the next economic recession is bound to cause consumers to tighten their belts. Adapting to market trends is the job of airline management hired by shareholders, who bear the risks of these decisions. LCCs and ULCCs have responded by offering better bundled amenities at higher prices to varying degrees of success. Bailing out those that fail to succeed is both bad policy and bad business.
The unique features of LCCs and ULCCs make a bailout of these types of airlines especially troubling. The main value of budget airlines stems from their strategy of rapidly entering and exiting routes.
In 1992, the Department of Transportation dubbed the results of this new competition "the Southwest Effect," where entry by an LCC would significantly reduce average airfares while increasing capacity, thereby benefiting all travelers regardless of the airline they chose. Economists such as Goolsbee & Syverson (2008), Resul Aydemir (2012), and Ethiraj & Zhou (2019) have found the mere perceived threat of entry by an LLC or ULCC can cause incumbent network carriers to substantially reduce their prices and adjust service quality to make their offerings more attractive to customers.
Bailing out a failing ultra-low-cost carrier risks short-circuiting these pro-competitive dynamics.
If the White House's Spirit financing deal goes through, there are two troubling potential impacts.
First, Spirit could raise prices in an attempt to limp along and repay its new creditors. This would dilute the competitive benefits of ULCC competition in the airline market.
Second, and worse, if the government takes a substantial stake in Spirit Airlines and decides to run it at a perpetual loss, as it does with Amtrak, it would undercut Spirit's private LCC and ULCC competitors and put this entire pro-competitive segment of the airline industry at risk.
Rather than aggressively intervening in the air travel market, federal policymakers have better options to enhance airline competition and consumer choice. As I discussed in my 2023 Reason Foundation report, Airline deregulation: Past experience and future reforms, existing federal policy imposes substantial barriers to airline entry. Its airport financing restrictions protect incumbent airlines' preferential-use gates and limit airport access.
Likewise, slot controls at the busiest airports encourage incumbent carriers to hoard and underuse scarce airport capacity. And finally, and most significantly, longstanding federal law has prohibited non-U.S. air carriers from serving domestic routes or even launching majority-owned U.S.-based subsidiaries. More competition in the airline industry would benefit travelers, but the barriers are largely due to misguided federal laws.
Bailing out Spirit Airlines would not help taxpayers, travelers or the airline industry. Instead of making this problem worse by undermining the airlines most responsible for the competition that does exist and exposing taxpayers to large financial risk, the White House should call on Congress to pass real reforms that would benefit both consumers and taxpayers.
* * *
Marc Scribner is a senior transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/bailing-out-spirit-airlines-would-not-help-taxpayers-travelers-airline-industry/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: States React to Nitrous Oxide Deaths With Unnecessary, Unworkable Bans
LOS ANGELES, California, April 23 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on April 22, 2026, by senior policy fellow Hanna Liebman Dershowitz:
* * *
States react to nitrous oxide deaths with unnecessary, unworkable bans
State legislatures truly concerned about teen safety should look beyond bans and embrace a regulatory approach that protects and educates consumers.
*
In recent years, prompted by concern about danger to teens amid an increase in incidents of deaths associated with nitrous oxide use, states have scrambled to respond with legislative solutions, mostly turning
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, April 23 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on April 22, 2026, by senior policy fellow Hanna Liebman Dershowitz:
* * *
States react to nitrous oxide deaths with unnecessary, unworkable bans
State legislatures truly concerned about teen safety should look beyond bans and embrace a regulatory approach that protects and educates consumers.
*
In recent years, prompted by concern about danger to teens amid an increase in incidents of deaths associated with nitrous oxide use, states have scrambled to respond with legislative solutions, mostly turningto bans. While the dangers of nitrous oxide use are serious and important, there are better ways to dissuade use and provide support for young people using substances.
Colloquially known as "whip its" or "laughing gas," this is the same stuff you may remember from dental visits, assuming you've never tried it for fun.
Nitrous oxide has been used in medicine since the mid-1800s and recreationally even earlier. The short-acting, non-flammable sedative is safe for medical use, and is also widely sold as a propellant in food preparation to conveniently whip cream, and for automotive uses. When inhaled, it produces a euphoric feeling that has attracted young people seeking a cheap, quick high for many decades.
According to a study published in JAMA Network Open, annual deaths from nitrous oxide use in the U.S. increased from 23 in 2010 to 156 in 2023, a development understandably alarming to public officials. The inhalant is predominantly used by youth aged 16 to 30. Long-term use poses serious health risks, and in the rare cases when death occurs, asphyxia is typically the cause of death.
The uptick during the study period reflects a new generation of young people being exposed to this substance and a new generation of products marketing to them. The recent crop has appeared in smoke shops, gas stations, and convenience stores, as well as online, under names such as Galaxy Gas, often with catchy packaging and added flavorings.
Nitrous oxide, by virtue of not being a scheduled drug under the Controlled Substances Act, is not regulated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); rather, it is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In June 2025, the FDA updated its warnings about nitrous oxide, noting the increase in use observed by the FDA and the press.
Instead of practical responses, states have largely responded with bans and regulations that will remove the products from certain locations or impose penalties for selling to minors.
Louisiana was the first state to pass a bill responding to the renewed attention to nitrous oxide, banning retail sales for recreational use of nitrous oxide (and other substances such as butyl and amyl nitrates) in gas form in 2024.
Also in 2024, Michigan banned the sale of nitrous oxide items for recreational use, with greater penalties for selling to kids under 18.
Oklahoma followed with the "Maddix Bias Act" in 2025, criminalizing the use of nitrous oxide and adding harsher penalties for its sale by adults to people under 18. The law was named after and followed the death of a recently graduated high school baseball star who died in a single-vehicle car crash, the driver of which was found to be under the influence of nitrous oxide.
In Washington, House Bill 2532, a bill banning sales of nitrous oxide except for medical, food, or automotive uses, was sent to the governor in March after passing unanimously in both chambers and was signed into law on March 24.
Florida Senate Bill 432, also known as "Meg's Law," at press time was heading to that state's governor's desk. It passed unanimously in both houses in March. This law prohibits the sale of nitrous oxide products by tobacco and nicotine sellers.
New York A09287, which died in committee in March, would have criminalized the sale and possession of nitrous oxide for non-approved uses, and also would have added a crime of "driving while ability impaired by nitrous oxide." The bill would have also provided for education about the harms of nitrous oxide.
Minnesota House File 325 would ban only flavored nitrous oxide for recreational use. It has been introduced but has not yet moved ahead.
In Tennessee, lawmakers are responding after an adult Nashville woman, Kelly Rosenthal, died several months after sharing her addiction story on TV. "You can just walk into any smoke shop if you're over 21" to purchase nitrous oxide, she said. Tennessee's House Bill 1644/Senate Bill 1843 would prohibit vape sellers from selling nitrous oxide products. It is on the governor's desk. Another bill in that state would adopt a full ban on recreational use.
In Mississippi, lawmakers introduced a prohibition on "knowingly" selling the product for use as an inhalant. The bill died quickly before going anywhere.
A big concern of many public officials is that some of these products deploy eye-catching packaging and designs that may be especially appealing to young people, and it's fueled by popular videos on TikTok and other social media sites showing young people inhaling the products. If this is the chief concern, why aren't lawmakers trying to regulate packaging? Why create a whole new regime of prohibition?
The data reflecting greater use and deaths from nitrous oxide call for educating young people about the dangers of addiction, suffocation, and death after inhaling nitrous oxide, not banning their sale or prohibiting their sale to minors. Bans or laws that curtail sales in certain locations are unlikely to eliminate the dangers. These kinds of laws may give some parents a false sense of security, but they might also frustrate people seeking the products for legitimate uses and lead youth into situations with disreputable sellers who are motivated to sell more expensive and possibly more dangerous products.
We know that complete bans are not necessary to dissuade youth, because consumption has been drastically reduced for many more dangerous substances, such as alcohol and tobacco, without criminalizing use. Those substances, although legal for adults, have been successfully regulated by substantial public education combined with age-gating. While limiting the presence on store shelves may serve as a deterrent to some youth who would not seek them out elsewhere, it is unclear whether a ban would be the best way to limit access, especially since one permissible use for nitrous oxide is in baking, rendering these products widely available in grocery stores and online.
Turning away from the moral panic, there are actually many valuable uses of nitrous oxide even beyond dental work, baking, and cars. For example, nitrous oxide, in its low-dose dental preparation, has been used to treat opioid addiction and has shown promise as a treatment for alcohol withdrawal and depression, among other conditions.
It is laudable that policymakers want to stem the use of nitrous oxide among youth. Unfortunately, the outmoded, knee-jerk measures being passed to address nitrous oxide harms give legislators a box to check but don't solve any real problems. State legislatures truly concerned about teen safety should look beyond bans and embrace a regulatory approach that protects consumers through public education, warnings, harm reduction services, and quality controls.
* * *
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz is a senior policy fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/states-react-nitrous-oxide-deaths-unnecessary-unworkable-bans/
FFRF Ensures Nonreligious Students are Eligible for Iowa's Highest Athletic Honor
MADISON, Wisconsin, April 23 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release on April 22, 2026:
* * *
FFRF ensures nonreligious students are eligible for Iowa's highest athletic honor
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has persuaded the Iowa High School Athletic Association to revise the criteria student-athletes need to win the state's highest school honor.
A concerned Iowa parent reported that the Iowa High School Athletic Association (IHSAA) was imposing a religious criterion on students in order to be eligible for the Bernie Saggau Award of Merit, an award described
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, April 23 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release on April 22, 2026:
* * *
FFRF ensures nonreligious students are eligible for Iowa's highest athletic honor
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has persuaded the Iowa High School Athletic Association to revise the criteria student-athletes need to win the state's highest school honor.
A concerned Iowa parent reported that the Iowa High School Athletic Association (IHSAA) was imposing a religious criterion on students in order to be eligible for the Bernie Saggau Award of Merit, an award describedas the "highest student honor" that the association awards annually. According to the official description, the award is "presented annually to the graduating student who best exemplifies a patriotic spirit, with strong religious and moral convictions, living and professing the qualities of honesty, integrity and sportsmanship [emphasis added]." FFRF learned that high schools throughout Iowa were advertising the award using the "strong religious and moral convictions" language.
FFRF stepped in to make certain nonreligious students are also eligible for the award.
"Because the IHSAA is a state actor due to its operational agreement with the Iowa Department of Education, the IHSAA is obligated to respect students' First Amendment rights," FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence wrote to the district.
Public school students have a constitutional right to be free from discrimination on the basis of religion or nonreligion when participating in the Iowa High School Athletic Association contest. Participation includes students' eligibility for the Bernie Saggau Award of Merit regardless of whether they subscribe to a religion. It is well settled that public entities may not show favoritism toward or coerce belief or participation in religion, especially in the school context. By conditioning eligibility for the award on "strong religious . . . convictions," the association is clearly favoring religion over nonreligion.
Thankfully, the organization took FFRF's guidance on the issue.
Iowa High School Athletic Association Executive Director Tom Keating emailed FFRF informing the state/church watchdog of a new, more inclusive approach regarding the award.
"The words, 'religious and' have been removed from the verbiage on the award certificate," Keating wrote. "This year's certificates will reflect that change."
FFRF is pleased to see the Iowa's top school athletic association work to make a respectful environment for freethinking Hawkeye State students.
"Students should never be excluded from an award because they are atheists or otherwise nonreligious, particularly when 44 percent of young people today have no religious affiliation," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "We're pleased the association corrected this unconstitutional requirement and will judge students based on merit rather than applying an inappropriate religious litmus test."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with over 41,000 members across the country, including hundreds of members in Iowa. FFRF's purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between church and state, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-ensures-nonreligious-students-are-eligible-for-iowas-highest-athletic-honor/
[Category: Religion]
