DENVER (AP) — Artificial intelligence is helping decide which Americans get the job interview, the apartment, even medical care, but the first major proposals to reign in bias in AI decision making are facing headwinds from every direction.

Lawmakers working on these bills, in states including Colorado, Connecticut and Texas, are coming together Thursday to argue the case for their proposals as civil rights-oriented groups and the industry play tug-of-war with core components of the legislation.

Organizations including labor unions and consumer advocacy groups are pulling for more transparency from companies and greater legal recourse for citizens to sue over AI discrimination. The industry is offering tentative support but digging in its heels over those accountability measures.

The bipartisan lawmakers caught in the middle — including those from Alaska, Georgia and Virginia — have been working on AI legislation together in the face of federal inaction. The goal of the press conference is to highlight their work across states and stakeholders, reinforcing the importance of collaboration and compromise in this first step in regulation.

The lawmakers include Connecticut’s Democratic state Sen. James Maroney, Colorado’s Democratic Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez and Alaska’s Republican Sen. Shelley Hughes.

“At this point, we don’t have confidence in the federal government to pass anything quickly. And we do see there is a need for regulation,” said Maroney. “It’s important that industry advocates, government and academia work together to get the best possible regulations and legislation.”

The lawmakers argue the bills are a first step that can be built on going forward.

While over 400 AI-related bills are being debated this year in statehouses nationwide, most target one industry or just a piece of the technology — such as deepfakes used in elections or to make pornographic images.

The biggest bills this team of lawmakers has put forward offer a broad framework for oversight, particularly around one of the technology’s most perverse dilemmas: AI discrimination. Examples include an AI that failed to accurately assess Black medical patients and another that downgraded women’s resumes as it filtered job applications.

Still, up to 83% of employers use algorithms to help in hiring, according to estimates from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

If nothing is done, there will almost always be bias in these AI systems, explained Suresh Venkatasubramanian, a Brown University computer and data science professor who’s teaching a class on mitigating bias in the design of these algorithms.

“You have to do something explicit to not be biased in the first place,” he said.

These proposals, mainly in Colorado and Connecticut, are complex, but the core thrust is that companies would be required to perform “impact assessments” for certain AI systems. Those reports would include descriptions of how AI figures into a decision, the data collected and an analysis of the risks of discrimination, along with an explanation of the company’s safeguards.

The contention is mainly who gets to see those reports. Greater access to information on the AI systems, such as the impact assessments, means greater accountability and safety for the public. But companies worry it also raises the risk of lawsuits and the revelation of trade secrets.

Under bills in Colorado, Connecticut and California, the company wouldn’t have to routinely submit impact assessments to the government. The onus would also largely land on companies to disclose to the attorney general if they found discrimination — a government or independent organization wouldn’t be testing these AI systems for bias.

Labor unions and academics worry that over reliance on companies self-reporting imperils the public or government’s ability to catching AI discrimination before it’s done harm.

“It’s already hard when you have these huge companies with billions of dollars,” said Kjersten Forseth, who represents the Colorado’s AFL-CIO, a federation of labor unions that opposes Colorado’s bill. “Essentially you are giving them an extra boot to push down on a worker or consumer.”

Tech companies say greater transparency will reveal trade secrets in a now hyper-competitive market. David Edmonson, of TechNet, a bipartisan network of technology CEOs and senior executives that lobbies on AI bills, said in a statement that the organization works with lawmakers to “ensure any legislation addresses AI’s risk while allowing innovation to flourish.”

The California Chamber of Commerce opposes that state’s bill, concerned that impact assessments could be made public in litigation.

Another contentious component of the bills is who can file a lawsuit under the legislation, which the bills generally limit to state attorney generals and other public attorneys not citizens.

After a provision in California’s bill that allowed citizens to sue was stripped out, Workday, a finance and HR software company, endorsed the proposal. Workday argues that civil actions from citizens would leave the decisions up to judges, many of whom are not tech experts, and could result in inconsistent approach to regulation.

“We can’t stop AI from being woven into our daily lives, so obviously government has to step in at some point, but it also makes sense that the industry themselves wants a good environment to thrive,” said Chandler Morse, vice president of public policy and corporate affairs at Workday.

Sorelle Friedler, a professor who focuses on AI bias at Haverford College, pushes back.

“That’s generally how American society asserts our rights, is by suing,” said Friedler.

Sen. Maroney of Connecticut said there’s been pushback in articles that claim he and Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Texas, have been “pedaling industry-written bills” despite all of the money being spent by the industry to lobby against the legislation.

Maroney pointed out one industry group, Consumer Technology Association, has taken out ads and built a website, urging lawmakers to defeat the legislation.

“I believe that we are on the right path. We’ve worked together with people from industry, from academia, from civil society,” he said.

“Everyone wants to feel safe, and we’re creating regulations that will allow for safe and trustworthy AI,” he added.

_____

Associated Press reporters Trân Nguyễn contributed from Sacramento, California, Becky Bohrer contributed from Anchorage, Alaska, Susan Haigh contributed from Connecticut.

___

Bedayn is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. (AP) — A Pennsylvania school district has canceled an upcoming appearance by actor and children’s book author Maulik Pancholy after district leaders cited concerns about what they described as his activism and “lifestyle.”

Pancholy, who is gay, was scheduled to speak against bullying during a May 22 assembly at Mountain View Middle School in Cumberland County. However, the district’s school board voted unanimously Monday night to cancel his talk after some members voiced their concerns and others noted the district’s policy about not hosting overtly political events, news outlets reported. The policy was enacted after the district was criticized for hosting a rally by Donald Trump during his 2016 campaign for president.

Pancholy, 48, is an award-winning actor, including for his roles on the television shows “30 Rock” and “Weeds,” and as the voice of Baljeet on the Disney animated series, “Phineas & Ferb.” He also has written children’s books and in 2014 was named by then-President Barack Obama to serve on the President’s Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, where he co-founded a campaign to combat AAPI bullying.

Pancholy’s appearance was scheduled by the school’s leadership team, which each year schedules an author presentation as a “unique educational experience for students,” according to the district.

While discussing the appearance at Monday night’s meeting, school board members said they did not know what Pancholy’s talk would be about, but one member said he didn’t “want to run the risk” of what it might entail.

“If you research this individual, he labels himself as an activist,” Bud Shaffner said, according to Pennlive. “He is proud of his lifestyle, and I don’t think that should be imposed upon our students, at any age.”

The Associated Press sent an email message to Pancholy’s publicists Thursday afternoon.

The board’s vote sparked criticism from several parents, students and community members who called the decision “homophobic.” Some have started online petitions urging that Pancholy’s appearance be reinstated.

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — An attorney has been added to the special prosecution team that is pursuing an involuntary manslaughter charge against actor Alec Baldwin in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of the Western movie “Rust,” court officials confirmed Thursday.

The district attorney for Santa Fe has appointed Erlinda Johnson as special prosecutor to the Baldwin case, which is scheduled for trail in July. She was sworn in Tuesday.

Baldwin has pleaded not guilty to an involuntary manslaughter charge in the shooting of Halyna Hutchins during an October 2021 rehearsal at a movie-set ranch on the outskirts of Santa Fe.

Baldwin, the lead actor and co-producer for “Rust,” was pointing a gun at Hutchins during rehearsal when the revolver went off, killing Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza.

Johnson’s experience as a criminal defense and personal injury attorney include representing former New Mexico secretary of state Dianna Duran, who resigned from elected office in 2015 amid revelations she used campaign funds to fuel a gambling addiction. Duran received a 30-day jail sentence after pleading guilty to embezzlement and money laundering charges.

Johnson previously worked as a federal prosecutor on drug enforcement and organized crime investigations after serving as assistant district attorney in the Albuquerque area.

Prosecutors are turning their full attention to Baldwin after a judge on Monday sentenced movie weapons supervisor Hannah Gutierrez-Reed to the maximum 18 months in prison at a state penitentiary on an involuntary manslaughter conviction in the death of Hutchins.

Prosecutors blamed Gutierrez-Reed for unwittingly bringing live ammunition onto the set of “Rust,” where it was expressly prohibited, and for failing to follow basic gun safety protocols. She was convicted in March at a jury trial.

Defense attorneys for Baldwin are urging the judge to dismiss a grand jury indictment against their client, accusing prosecutors of “unfairly stacking the deck” in grand jury proceedings that diverted attention away from exculpatory evidence and witnesses.

Special prosecutors deny those accusations and accuse Baldwin of “shameless” attempts to escape culpability, highlighting contradictions in Baldwin’s statements to law enforcement, workplace safety regulators and the public in a televised interview.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump lost a bid Thursday to pause a string of lawsuits accusing him of inciting the U.S. Capitol attack, while the former president fights his 2020 election interference criminal case in Washington.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington denied defense lawyers’ request to put the civil cases seeking to hold Trump responsible for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on hold while the criminal case accusing him of conspiring to overturn his election defeat to President Joe Biden plays out.

It’s the latest legal setback for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, whose trial in a separate criminal case related to hush money payments made during the 2016 campaign began this week with jury selection in New York.

The lawsuits brought by Democratic lawmakers and police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 seek civil damages for harm they say they suffered during the attack, which aimed to stop Congress’ certification of Biden’s victory.

Trump has claimed he can’t be sued over the riot that left dozens of police officers injured, arguing that his words during a rally before the storming of the Capitol addressed “matters of public concern” and fell within the scope of absolute presidential immunity.

Washington’s federal appeals court ruled in December that the lawsuits can move forward, rejecting Trump’s sweeping claims that presidential immunity shields him from liability. The court, however, said Trump can continue to fight, as the cases proceed, to try to prove that his actions were taken in his official capacity as president.

In court papers filed last month, Trump’s lawyers told the judge that “basic fairness to criminal defendants” warrants pausing the civil cases until after the 2020 election criminal case is resolved. They argued that allowing the lawsuits to proceed could force Trump to “prematurely telegraph” his defense strategies in the criminal case.

Mehta, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, said the public has an interest in the prompt resolution of the civil lawsuits in addition to the criminal case. And the judge said “appropriate safeguards” can be put in place to allow for the lawsuits to advance without infringing on Trump’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next week on Trump’s claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution in the election interference case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. The ruling will determine whether Trump will have to stand trial in the case accusing him of a sprawling conspiracy to stay in power after Americans voted him out of office.

BURLINGTON, Vt. (AP) — The man accused of starting a fire outside independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Vermont office earlier this month will remain detained pending further legal proceedings, a federal judge ordered Thursday.

Shant Michael Soghomonian was indicted by a grand jury on a charge of maliciously damaging or attempting to damage and destroy by fire a building used in interstate commerce, according to the indictment filed with the court. Soghomonian, 35, has not yet been arraigned.

Surveillance video shows the man throwing a liquid April 5 at the bottom of a door opening into Sanders’ third-floor office in Burlington and setting it on fire with a lighter, according to an affidavit filed by a special agent with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The motive remains unclear, and Sanders was not in the office at the time.

Seven employees working in the office were able to get out unharmed. The building’s interior suffered damage from the fire and water sprinklers.

Soghomonian, who was previously from Northridge, California, had been staying at a South Burlington hotel for nearly two months and was spotted outside Sanders’ office the day before and the day of the fire, according to the special agent’s report.

Prosecutors argued that Soghomonian is a danger to the community and a flight risk and should remain detained. A phone message was left with his public defender and was not immediately returned.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A civilian interrogator who worked 20 years ago at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq denied abusing detainees Thursday, and told jurors he was actually promoted for doing a good job.

Steven Stefanowicz, who worked for military contractor CACI when he was assigned to Abu Ghraib in 2003 and 2004, has long been a key figure in the abuse scandal that emerged when photos became public showing U.S. soldiers smiling as detainees were forced into shocking poses of physical and sexual humiliation.

While multiple soldiers were convicted and sentenced to prison in courts-martial for their roles at Abu Ghraib, neither Stefanowicz nor any other civilian contractor who worked at the prison has ever been charged with a crime.

Stefanowicz’s testimony Wednesday and Thursday in front of a federal jury in Alexandria comes as his former employer defends itself in a civil suit brought by three Abu Ghraib survivors who allege that CACI’s interrogators share responsibility for the abuse they endured.

The lawsuit, delayed by more than 15 years of legal wrangling, is the first time that Abu Ghraib detainees have been able to bring their abuse claims in front of a U.S. jury.

Jurors previously heard testimony from two retired Army generals who investigated Abu Ghraib, and both concluded that Stefanowicz had a role in the abuse of detainees, either by directing military police to “soften up” inmates for interrogation, by using dogs to intimidate them, and by other means of mistreatment.

The reports also concluded that Stefanowicz lied to Army investigators in 2004 when he was questioned as part of those investigations.

At trial Thursday, Stefanowicz acknowledged that he implemented a “sleep management plan” for a detainee he was interrogating, meaning that military police played loud music at night to prevent him from sleeping.

But Stefanowicz said the sleep deprivation plan was approved by Army officers who oversaw his work.

He said he hewed to the Army’s rules for interrogations and that while he requested the ability to use dogs during interrogations, he never did because he never received approval.

During testimony that came in through a recorded deposition he gave last month, Stefanowicz said he never sought to abuse or humiliate detainees and said his duties were to “extrapolate information to thwart the war on terror.”

Stefanowicz said he left Abu Ghraib in 2004, after photos of detainee abuse came to light, but only because his parents were receiving death threats after his work at the prison became public.

In fact, he said he was promoted by CACI to become their site lead at Abu Ghraib.

Jurors saw emails indicating that Stefanowicz was being promoted in April 2004 from his job as interrogator and receiving a 48% pay raise, to $140,000 annually. The pay raise and promotion came three months after the Army had begun its investigation of detainee abuse and two months after Stefanowicz had been questioned by then-Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba about his conduct.

While CACI may have been pleased with Stefanowicz’s work at Abu Ghraib, evidence introduced Thursday showed that CACI officials initially had serious doubts about his ability to work as an interrogator.

An email sent by CACI official Tom Howard before the company sent interrogators to Iraq described Stefanowicz as a “NO-GO for filling an interrogator position.”

“Though he has a crafty resume he is neither trained nor qualified for the interrogator position,” Howard wrote.

Stefanowicz had spent time in the Navy reserves and at the U.S. Embassy in Oman, but he acknowledged that he’d never had training as an interrogator.

When he first went to Abu Ghraib, he was initially classified as a screener who took information down about incoming inmates to decide how they should be classified.

He testified that within a day, Army personnel decided to promote him to interrogator.

Mark Billings, a contracting officer with CACI, testified Thursday that the company struggled to find qualified interrogators to fulfill its contract with the Army, which needed to rapidly increase its intelligence capabilities after the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Billings said the Army bore the responsibility for supervising the work of Stefanowicz and other contractors. On cross-examination, though, he was shown language in the CACI’s contract with the Army requiring CACI to take responsibility for supervising its own personnel.

CACI continued to present evidence in its defense Thursday, though it was thwarted to some extent by the U.S. government, which invoked the state secrets privilege over evidence CACI sought to introduce.

Multiple witnesses who served as civilian and military interrogators at Abu Ghraib were allowed to testify only by audio that distorted their voices. They were identified only as “interrogator C” or “interrogator G” and were not allowed to testify about their identity or their interrogations of certain detainees.

CACI is seeking to show that any of the abuse suffered by the three specific plaintiffs in the case came at the hands of personnel other than CACI interrogators.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema has expressed frustration throughout the case about the government’s invocation of state secrets. Earlier in the trial, government lawyers jumped up to object to an exhibit listing a series of names identified in one of the generals’ Abu Ghraib investigations, even though the names have been a public part of that report for 20 years.

On Thursday, outside the jury’s presence, she said the government’s assertions over seemingly petty issues like a witness’ educational background or whether a witness had been trained about protections accorded in the Geneva Convention “makes the U.S. government look very foolish.”

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York would expand access to booze by allowing movie theaters to sell liquor and continuing to let people buy takeout cocktails from bars and restaurants under a series of measures unveiled Thursday.

The state Assembly passed the measures Thursday, which are part of the larger state budget agreement. The state Senate is expected to follow before it’s sent to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s desk for signature. The deal was struck between Hochul and leaders of the state Senate and Assembly after a series of closed-door talks.

Movie theaters in New York are only allowed to sell beer and wine, according to the New York State Liquor Authority, but this new legislation would add liquor to the mix.

“Someone should be able to enjoy a cocktail while they watch a movie,” said state Sen. James Skoufis, a Democrat who chairs a legislative committee where state alcohol laws pass through.

The measure comes with guardrails in an attempt to maintain a family-friendly environment at theatres that have licenses to sell booze. People would only be allowed to purchase one alcoholic beverage per transaction, and theaters must stop selling alcohol once the credits start rolling in for the last showing of the day.

New Yorkers would also be allowed to buy takeout cocktails at restaurants and bars for the next five years under another measure part of the state budget. The rule was set to expire next year after the state temporarily authorized the sale of to-go alcoholic drinks during the pandemic.

Skoufis, who supports keeping that measure permanent, said “it provides some short-term certainty for restaurants and businesses doing this.”

Lawmakers in Albany voted Thursday to push the state’s budget deadline again, though they are expected to vote on package of budget bills later in the week. Hochul announced on Monday the framework of a $237 billion budget, about two weeks after the original April 1 deadline.

___

Maysoon Khan is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Some Democrats are entertaining the prospect of coming to House Speaker Mike Johnson’s rescue should Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., force a vote seeking his ouster, though it will likely depend on his ability to deliver an emergency aid package focused on Ukraine and Israel.

Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York has suggested that Democrats would help Johnson if the speaker faced retribution from within his own party for holding votes on the $95.3 billion package. But he’s also encouraging his colleagues to take a wait-and-see approach to apply maximum leverage.

“Do not box yourself in with a public statement,” Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark, the No. 2-ranking House Democratic leader, told colleagues in a closed-door session Thursday, according to a person familiar with the private remarks.

Still, Johnson’s future been a much discussed topic on Capitol Hill — even more so after Republican leadership on Thursday floated the possibility of changing the House rules to make it easier for a speaker to withstand a challenge from members of their own party. With or without the rule change, Johnson may need Democratic support to remain as speaker if Greene or someone else forces a vote.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., said if the aid package makes it over the finish line, “I think a lot of people are not going to want to punish him for doing the right thing.”

Greene has threatened to try to oust Johnson and warned that advancing funding for Ukraine would help build her case that GOP lawmakers should select a new speaker. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., tweeted this week that he told Johnson during a closed-door Republican conference meeting that he would be co-sponsoring Greene’s motion. Massie suggested Johnson “should pre-announce his resignation” and give Republicans time to select a successor.

The vast majority of Republicans are distancing themselves from Greene’s effort, wary of repeating the chaos the House endured last fall when eight Republicans joined with Democrats in removing then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., from the post. It’s likely that Johnson would not need a large number of Democratic lawmakers to help him remain in the speaker’s office, but it would depend on how many Republicans voted to remove him.

Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., said that if Johnson would put the Senate-passed measure on the floor, “I would do what I had to do to make sure he does not lose his job for that.” Johnson made the decision to take the Senate measure and break it into three separate bills. He’s also added a fourth bill focused on national security priorities.

Breaking up the package into parts gives lawmakers the ability to vote against military assistance to Ukraine or Israel without tanking the entire measure.

Johnson said he has not asked a single Democrat to “get involved in that at all” when asked about a possible motion to vacate.

“I do not spend time walking around thinking about the motion to vacate,” Johnson said. “I have a job to do here and I’m going to do the job, regardless of personal consequences.”

Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., said he would consider voting present during a speaker vote if Johnson allowed the Ukraine aid to be voted on.

“Why in the world would I want to go along with Marjorie Taylor Greene if Mike Johnson just gave us a vote I’ve been advocating for for more than six months?” Boyle said. “I think a number of Democrats would be in the same position — not necessarily a vote for him, but just make clear this is a Republican issue and we’re not going to aid and abet Marjorie Taylor Greene to cause even more chaos.”

“I hope he will have some sort of conversation with Hakeem, but either way, yes, I’m one of those who would save him if we can do Israel, Taiwan, Ukraine and some reasonable border security,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.

Other Democrats said helping Johnson must come as part of a package deal. They said he shouldn’t expect Democratic support just by putting the Senate-passed package up for a vote. He’ll need to have coordinated with Jeffries as well.

“We’re just not going to go and bail out one of the most conservative Republican speakers in American history. But what Kevin McCarthy failed to do is even entertain a conversation to try to make a deal. Democrats were ready to deal. Kevin McCarthy refused to,” said Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass. “If Speaker Johnson cares about doing the right thing as well as keeping his job, then he ought to make a deal with Democrats.”

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., said there is a “powerful instinct” among Democrats that it’s not their job to rescue Johnson from the chaos in his party. But he’s willing to help Johnson on the motion to vacate if he were to “do the right thing” on the aid package and coordinate that with Jeffries.

“I will defer to getting things done as opposed to tying myself up in partisan knots, but it’s going to be Hakeem who decides how we act,” Himes said. “We’re not going to let the Republicans sort of chip off a number of us. This will be negotiated with our leadership.”

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, said he’s unlikely to help Johnson and is not sure how long the speaker would be around anyway if he has to rely on Democratic votes to continue on the job.

“I’ve listened to what Mr. Jeffries said and I won’t rule it out, but I’m inclined to vote as I normally would. I am very concerned about how long he’s delayed Ukraine. We count the days. They count the lives lost,” Doggett said.

And then there are scores of Democrats who are in the hard “no” camp.

Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., for example, said there was no way he would vote to keep Johnson as speaker.

“I think his worldview is very dangerous. I think there’s no scenario where I’m going to reward someone like that, who allows this level of chaos to happen in the House.”

And Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., also is a hard no on helping Johnson, calling it a well-intentioned idea that is fundamentally flawed.

“Bad on guns, bad on gays, bad on abortion and bad on voting rights,” Connolly said. “He litigated the overturning of the (2020) election. He didn’t just vote the wrong way. He signed up for a lawsuit. That’s who you want to save? Go home and explain that to Democrats.”

Massie warned that if Democrats help Johnson stay on a speaker, “they would doom him, they won’t save him.”

“It’s not a stable situation if a Republican speaker is speaker only by virtue of Democrats fighting for him,” Massie said.

___

Congressional correspondent Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Federal officials are pushing back against a judge’s order that would delay the planned closure of a troubled women’s prison in California where inmates suffered sexual abuse by guards, according to court documents.

Following the Bureau of Prison’s sudden announcement Monday that FCI Dublin would be shut down, U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered an accounting of the casework for all 605 women held at the main lockup and its adjacent minimum-security camp.

In response, the bureau has filed court papers questioning the authority of the special master appointed by the judge on April 5 to oversee the prison, who’s now tasked with reviewing each inmate’s status.

The judge’s order amounts to “a de facto requirement” for the bureau to keep the prison open, U.S. attorneys wrote in Tuesday’s filing. But plans for the closure and transfer of inmates “cannot be changed on the fly,” especially because the facility faces a “significant lack of health services and severe understaffing,” according to the filing.

“The Court not only lacks jurisdiction to impose such a requirement, but it is also antithetical to the overall objective of safeguarding inmate safety and welfare,” the documents say. “Extensive resources and employee hours have already been invested in the move.”

A painstaking review of each incarcerated woman’s status would “ensure inmates are transferred to the correct location,” the judge wrote in her order Monday. “This includes whether an inmate should be released to a BOP facility, home confinement, or halfway house, or granted a compassionate release.”

It wasn’t clear Thursday how long the process could take.

Advocates have called for inmates to be freed from FCI Dublin, which they say is not only plagued by sexual abuse but also has hazardous mold, asbestos and inadequate health care. They also worry that some of the safety concerns could persist at other women’s prisons.

A 2021 Associated Press investigation exposed a “rape club” culture at the prison where a pattern of abuse and mismanagement went back years, even decades. The Bureau of Prisons repeatedly promised to improve the culture and environment — but the decision to shutter the facility represented an extraordinary acknowledgment that reform efforts have failed.

Groups representing inmates and prison workers alike said the imminent closure shows that the bureau is more interested in avoiding accountability than stemming the problems.

Last August, eight FCI Dublin inmates sued the Bureau of Prisons, alleging the agency had failed to root out sexual abuse at the facility about 21 miles (35 kilometers) east of Oakland. It is one of six women-only federal prisons and the only one west of the Rocky Mountains.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said inmates continued to face retaliation for reporting abuse, including being put in solitary confinement and having belongings confiscated. They said the civil litigation will continue.

The AP investigation found a culture of abuse and cover-ups that had persisted for years. That reporting led to increased scrutiny from Congress and pledges from the Bureau of Prisons that it would fix problems and change the culture at the prison.

Since 2021, at least eight FCI Dublin employees have been charged with sexually abusing inmates. Five have pleaded guilty. Two were convicted at trial, including the former warden, Ray Garcia. Another case is pending.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Florida school districts will soon have the option of allowing volunteer chaplains to counsel students under a bill signed Thursday by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who dismissed critics opposed to mixing religion with public education.

The only requirements for a chaplain to participate would be passing a background check and having their name and religious affiliation listed on the school website. The chaplains would “provide support, services, and programs to students as assigned by the district school board.” The law that takes effect July 1.

DeSantis stressed that the program is voluntary. Schools don’t have to have a chaplain and students don’t have to work with them. Parental permission would be required if they do.

“No one’s being forced to do anything, but to exclude religious groups from campus, that is discrimination,” DeSantis said. “You’re basically saying that God has no place. That’s wrong.”

Florida is among more than a dozen states that have sought to create school chaplain programs. Texas became the first under a law passed in 2023.

Supporters in Florida argued the legislation will provide another resource for children and pointed out that chaplains already serve in other government roles by working with police and serving in the military. The Legislature itself hosts a chaplain of the day when it’s in session and there’s a non-denominational chapel in the state Capitol.

Opponents cite several problems with the new Florida law, including there being no training requirements for chaplains. They also fear that some students might be ostracized if they are atheist or belong to a non-Christian religion in a Christian majority district.

“When you have a military chaplain, they go through intensive training and they have to be in a position where they can provide information which is factually correct and appropriate to the situation,” said Democratic Sen. Lori Berman of Palm Beach County.

Without that training, a chaplain could provide psychologically damaging counseling, Berman said. She suggested schools add more social workers, guidance counsellors or psychologists if they need them.

“Let’s put the trained professionals in and not some unlicensed, untrained people with a religious affiliation,” Berman said.