Kansas’ highest court on Wednesday upheld a Republican redistricting law that makes it harder for the only Democrat in the state’s congressional delegation to win reelection in a big victory for the GOP.

The state Supreme Court declined for now to declare that overly partisan gerrymandering violates the Kansas Constitution. The ruling sets district boundaries less than a month before the state’s June 10 filing deadline for congressional candidates.

The court’s opinion was two paragraphs long, saying only that the voters and voting rights group challenging the map “have not prevailed on their claims” that the map violated the state constitution and that a full opinion would come later.

The brief decision was written by Justice Caleb Stegall, who is seen as the most conservative of the court’s seven justices, five of whom were appointed by Democratic governors. During arguments from attorneys on Monday, he questioned whether anyone could clearly define improper partisan gerrymandering.

Lawsuits over new congressional district lines have proliferated across the U.S., with Republicans looking to recapture a U.S. House majority in this year’s midterm elections. Congressional maps in at least 17 states have inspired lawsuits, according to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice.

In the past, congressional district lines have been reviewed by federal judges and not the state Supreme Court. The conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in 2019 that complaints about partisan gerrymandering are political issues and not for the federal courts to resolve.

The state’s Republican-appointed solicitor general argued in defending the GOP-drawn map that because the state constitution doesn’t specifically mention gerrymandering or congressional redistricting, the Kansas Supreme Court should reject the legal challenges. He and other state officials said that the justices had no guidance on how to define improper political gerrymandering.

Jordan R. Pine is a dentist and attorney, making him eminently qualified to offer his expertise in dentist malpractice cases.

New York Dental malpractice occurs when the treatment provided by dental health care professionals falls below the acceptable standard of care causing serious personal injuries.

The law firm of Jordan R. Pine & Associates is exclusively dedicated to representing clients in dental malpractice lawsuits in New York State.

We have been involved with over 1,000 dental malpractice cases and have the expertise, resources, and passion to handle claims in this highly specific area. We have recovered millions of dollars for our clients.

Jordan R. Pine is an attorney who has spent most of his legal career defending dental malpractice cases. He was highly successful having prevailed in his last ten consecutive jury trials. During that time, he had the privilege to be a member of a large dental insurance company’s claims committee, which valued his input as to determining a case’s value and whether the case should settle or go to trial.

Thailand’s Central Bankruptcy Court on Monday gave the go-ahead to financially ailing Thai Airways International to submit a business reorganization plan and appointed seven planners to oversee it.

A press release from the airline said the plan should be submitted to the court by the end of the year. Then, the company’s receiver will consult creditors for their input before the court approve’s the plan and appoints its administrator in early 2021. The plan will then be implemented.

Thai Airways International in May was carrying an estimated debt burden of almost 300 billion baht ($9.6 billion). Most recently, it ran up 12 billion baht ($383.3 million) in losses in 2019, 11.6 billion baht ($370.5 million) in 2018 and 2.11 billion baht ($67.4 million) in 2017.

Thailand’s Cabinet in May approved a reduction in the government’s stake in the airline to below 50% as part of the reorganization plan. That move was quickly implemented.

With the reduction in the 51% share held by the Finance Ministry, the airline lost its status as a state enterprise. The action also meant that the airline's state enterprise union was automatically dissolved.

The airline initially sought a 54 billion baht ($1.7 billion) bailout loan from Thailand’s government after virtually ceasing operations due to the coronavirus crisis. Some domestic flights have resumed, but all regularly scheduled international flights are still banned.

The airline’s auditors, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Jaiyos, last month declined to sign off on Thai Airways' financial statements for the first half of this year, saying a lack of liquidity and debt defaults prevented it from assessing its assets and liabilities.

The airline went a partial restructuring in 2015, when Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha was serving a first term as prime minister in a military government established after a coup. The airline was already deeply in debt and needed to cut loss-making routes, reconfigure its fleet and get rid of staff through attrition.

It is almost certain to cut staff, fleet and flights under any new reorganization plan.

The airline was founded in 1960 as a joint venture between Thailand’s domestic carrier, Thai Airways Company, and SAS, Scandinavian Airlines System, which sold its stake in 1977. The airline’s shares were listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand in 1991.

The Nebraska Supreme Court has accepted the voluntary surrender of an imprisoned ex-bank executive's law license and ordered him disbarred.

The state's high court said in its ruling Friday that 77-year-old Gilbert Lundstrom's license was already inactive and that he voluntarily surrendered his license in September, noting that he had been convicted in federal court of 12 fraud-related felony counts.

Lundstrom was sentenced in 2016 to 11 years in federal prison for his role in the 2010 failure of Lincoln-based TierOne Bank, where he had served as chief executive officer.

Prosecutors said Lundstrom conspired with other bank officers to hide the bank's troubled finances from regulators and shareholders.

A federal appeals court says Texas must make improvements to abuse investigations within its foster care system and make sure workers have manageable caseloads, but the court also struck down dozens of other measures ordered by a judge.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling Thursday in a years-long case focused on children in the state’s long-term care. U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack had ordered sweeping changes earlier this year. Jack’s order followed a December 2015 opinion in which she ruled the system unconstitutionally broken and said children labeled permanent wards of the state “almost uniformly leave state custody more damaged than when they entered.”

The appeals court judges said they understood Jack’s frustration with the state failing to fix problems and agreed that “remedial action is appropriate.”

But the judges said her order went “well beyond” what’s necessary for constitutional compliance.

So while the appeals court said Texas was “deliberately indifferent” to the risk of harm posed by high caseloads and ordered the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to come up with guidelines for manageable caseloads, the judges nixed Jack’s instruction for all sexualized children — either aggressor or victim — to be placed in a single-child home.