By Paradise Afshar, CNN

Seven school boards are challenging Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin's executive order banning mask mandates -- the latest legal battle in an ongoing tug of war between parents, schools and local governments over pandemic rights.

The school boards of Alexandria City, Arlington County, Richmond City, Fairfax County, Falls Church City, Hampton City and Prince William County filed a lawsuit with the Circuit Court for the County of Arlington on Monday, challenging the constitutionality of the executive order, which also took effect Monday.

"Today's action is not politically motivated. These seven school divisions would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with the governor to ensure the safety and welfare of all students," the school boards said in a joint statement. "This lawsuit is not brought out of choice, but out of necessity."

Youngkin, who was inaugurated January 15, campaigned heavily on the rights of schoolchildren's parents. He signed an executive order on his first day in office allowing parents and guardians to "elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child's school or educational program." In August, Youngkin's predecessor, Democrat Ralph Northam, had issued a public health emergency order mandating masks in schools.

"We are disappointed that these school boards are ignoring parent's rights," Youngkin spokesperson Macaulay Porter said in a statement on Monday.

"The governor and attorney general are in coordination and are committed to aggressively defending parents' fundamental right to make decisions with regard to their child's upbringing, education and care, as the legal process plays out," Porter said.

The school boards allege Youngkin's order also contradicts a state law which says schools must follow US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Covid guidelines "to the maximum extent practicable" until August 1, 2022.

The CDC recommends all students, staff and school visitors wear masks indoors regardless of their vaccination status.

The school boards said the legal action, which represents more than 350,000 students across the commonwealth, "defends the right of school boards to enact policy at the local level, including policies that protect the health and well-being of all students and staff."

"Without today's action, school boards are placed in a legally untenable position -- faced with an executive order that is in conflict with the constitution and state law," the statement said.

Last week, a group of parents of public school students in Chesapeake filed a lawsuit, obtained by CNN affiliate WTKR, asking the state's supreme court to block the executive order, pointing to current CDC guidance as well as the state law on in-person schooling policies.

The lawsuit also names as defendants the acting state health commissioner, the acting superintendent for Virginia's public schools and local school officials in Chesapeake.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

Melissa Velásquez Loaiza

(CNN) -- La Corte Suprema de EE.UU. anunció este lunes que reconsideraría la acción afirmativa basada en la raza en las admisiones universitarias, una medida que podría eliminar las prácticas en los campus que han beneficiado ampliamente a los estudiantes negros e hispanos.

Los jueces dijeron que escucharán desafíos a las políticas de Harvard y la Universidad de Carolina del Norte que utilizan la raza de los estudiantes, entre muchos criterios, para decidir quién debe obtener un lugar codiciado en una clase de ingreso.

Los casos serán escuchados en el término que comienza en octubre con una decisión probable para junio de 2023.

Los conservadores de la Corte Suprema dejaron cada vez más de lado decisiones de décadas de antigüedad. Su aceptación de las apelaciones pone inmediatamente en duda los precedentes de 1978 y 2003 que permitan a las universidades considerar la raza de los estudiantes para mejorar la diversidad del campus y la experiencia educativa. Los tribunales federales inferiores se habían puesto del lado de Harvard y la Universidad de Carolina del Norte.

El caso de una mujer que denuncia discriminación y acusaciones de robo por su color de piel

La acción afirmativa basada en la raza durante los últimos 40 años ayudó a aumentar las posibilidades de admisión para muchas minorías raciales tradicionalmente desfavorecidas. En el caso contra Harvard, quienes retaron las políticas dicen que esas mismas prácticas han perjudicado a los solicitantes asiático-estadounidenses.

Los defensores que desarrollaron por primera vez las demandas de Harvard y UNC en 2014 aspiraban a una eventual batalla en la Corte Suprema, donde la acción afirmativa se confirmó solo a través de frágiles márgenes de un voto. En los casi ocho años transcurridos desde entonces, el tribunal ha ganado más jueces de derecha, en particular los tres designados por el expresidente Donald Trump.

El presidente del Tribunal Supremo, John Roberts, por su parte, se opuso durante mucho tiempo a las políticas raciales, incluso en la educación.

Esta mujer denuncia caso de discriminación en Lima 4:16

"Es un negocio sórdido dividirnos por raza", escribió en una disputa por los derechos de voto en 2006. Al año siguiente, cuando la mayoría invalidó dos planes de integración de escuelas públicas, escribió: "La forma de detener la discriminación por motivos de raza es dejar de discriminar por motivos de raza".

Los retadores de Students for Fair Admissions, que vinculan sus argumentos con tales declaraciones de Roberts y otros conservadores, argumentan que evaluar a los estudiantes en función de la raza, incluso para cumplir con los objetivos educativos, constituye una discriminación ilegal.

Los tribunales inferiores de EE. UU. que fallaron a favor de Harvard y la Universidad de Carolina del Norte en los casos de doble vía, sin embargo, dijeron que los programas usaban la raza de una manera suficientemente limitada para cumplir con los intereses apremiantes de la diversidad. Los abogados de la universidad, así como el Departamento de Justicia, habían instado al tribunal superior a rechazar las apelaciones.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

By Chris Boyette, CNN

A Connecticut man has been arrested and lost his job after video surfaced of him yelling at employees of a smoothie shop Saturday, where he claimed his son received a drink with peanut butter, causing a severe allergic reaction sending him to the hospital.

According to Fairfield Police, James Iannazzo picked up smoothies at a Robeks smoothie store Saturday afternoon and soon after called 911 for an EMS response for a juvenile suffering from an allergic reaction. The juvenile was later transported to an area hospital, police said.

"A short time later, Iannazzo returned to Robeks and confronted employees, yelling at them and demanding to know who had made the smoothie which contained peanuts, causing his child's allergic reaction. When employees could not provide Iannazzo with the answer he became irate, yelling at the employees using a number of expletives," police said in a statement. "He then threw a drink at an employee, which hit their right shoulder. The employee reported that they had no complaints of pain or injury. Iannazzo also made comments toward an employee referencing their immigration status."

Police said employees reported telling Iannazzo to leave, but he refused, at one point allegedly trying to open a locked "Employees Only" door leading behind the counter.

An attorney for lannazzo said when lannazzo placed his order at the Robeks he told employees it must not contain peanuts and his receipt reflected the order should not contain peanut butter, but he "wholeheartedly regrets the incident."

His attorney also told CNN affiliate News 12 Connecticut, "His son is on the road to recovery."

"When faced with a dire situation for his son, Mr. lannazzo's parental instinct kicked in and he acted out of anger and fear. He is not a racist individual and deeply regrets his statements and actions during a moment of extreme emotional stress," attorney Frank J. Riccio said in a statement.

Employees later told investigators Iannazzo never told them about the peanut allergy but only asked that there be no peanut butter in his drink, police said.

In video shared widely on social media, a man later identified as Iannazzo is seen yelling at the store employees asking who made the drink, and can be heard using expletives and telling one employee they were an "immigrant loser."

According to police, Iannazzo left the scene before they arrived, but later turned himself into police without incident.

Iannazzo was charged with Intimidation Based on Bigotry or Bias in the Second Degree, Breach of Peace in the Second Degree and Criminal Trespass in the First Degree, police said. He was issued a court appearance date of February 7 at Bridgeport Superior Court.

"At Robeks, our priority is to protect both store team members and guests. The company and its franchisees have a zero-tolerance policy for this type of behavior, and we are thankful that the franchisee's team members were not physically hurt," Robeks spokesperson Barbara Caruso said in a statement. "We appreciate the swift action by law enforcement and the judicial system in pursuing criminal charges for this unacceptable behavior."

A spokesperson for Bank of America, where Iannazzo worked as a Merrill Lynch financial advisor said he was no longer employed there.

"Our company does not tolerate behavior of this kind. We immediately investigated and have taken action. This individual is no longer employed at our firm," Bank of America/Merrill spokesperson Bill Halldin said.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

By Jonathan Stempel, An Phung

A judge on Monday delayed Sarah Palin's defamation trial against The New York Times by 10 days to February 3, after the 2008 Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate and former Alaska governor tested positive for the coronavirus.

The delay was announced by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan at a hearing.

Rakoff first announced that Palin had tested positive earlier Monday morning. "She is, of course, unvaccinated," Rakoff said then.

Palin sued the paper in 2017 over an editorial that incorrectly linked the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords to a map circulated by Palin's political action committee that showed certain electoral districts under crosshairs. The Times corrected the error and apologized for it, and a judge initially dismissed the case. But a federal appeals court revived it and, as a result, a trial will now take place.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNN Business

If you picture a typical Rolls-Royce owner, you probably imagine someone with white hair and maybe also white golf shoes. These are, after all, huge, cushy cars designed for comfort, just the sort of thing you'd think rich retirees would enjoy.

But if you ask Rolls-Royce customers, the true purpose of a Rolls-Royce isn't just effortless quiet and comfort, acquired after a lifetime of toil. It's about the prestige, status -- and, yes, pleasure -- of a product they're fortunate enough to be able to purchase while their hair still retains some color. When it recently announced its record-breaking 2021 sales -- about 5,600 vehicles sold worldwide -- Rolls-Royce also announced the average age of its customers, in the United States and globally, is just 43 years old. That means many buyers are also much younger than that, like in their 20s or 30s.

Like Maxie Kaan-Lilly, a 30-year-old South Florida real estate agent and model. Her Rolls-Royce Dawn is her only car and she takes it everywhere, she said.

"It's my ride-or-die," she said of her white convertible.

Dawn prices start at over $350,000, before any options, and Kaan-Lilly considers her car both a mark of success and a tool for business, she said. Clients are impressed when she picks them up at the airport and drives them to tour a property in the comfort and opulence of a Rolls-Royce, she added.

"Rolls-Royce is the epitome of success," she said, "so when I got to that point in my career I decided it's an investment I wanted to make because it's an investment in yourself, really."

Few other car brands have an average buyer age as low as Rolls-Royce's. Rolls-Royce is owned by BMW, which also owns the British brand Mini. The average age of a Mini buyer in the US is 52, according to BMW, which did not provide a precise average age for the BMW brand, itself.

Data collected by the consulting firm IHS Markit during the third quarter of 2021 shows that Rolls-Royce had a higher percentage of buyers under age 45 than many other luxury and exotic brands, including Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Lexus, and even Lamborghini.

The reason may come down, in large part, to an age gap between the rich and the super rich. People in Rolls-Royce's target market -- people with enough money to spend a third to a half of a million dollars on a car -- are younger, on average, than those who are merely wealthy. Recent surveys by Spectrem Group, a consulting firm that studies wealthy investors, show that people with between $1 million and $25 million in net worth are, on average, about 62 years old. Those with a net worth over $25 million are, on average, 48 years old.

Spectrem Group Director Randy Wostratzky wouldn't speculate on the reasons behind the age gap, but the difference fits with the way Rolls-Royce Americas CEO Martin Fritches describes the brand's customers. Rolls-Royce buyers tend to be entrepreneurs, elite athletes and entertainers, he said. He does not describe people who just had well-paying jobs and saved and invested carefully over many years, although there are some of them, too. Rolls-Royce customers, for the most part, make their money while they're still young enough to enjoy it. And they're not waiting.

"We have a lot of new athletes, and so on," said Lonny Soza, President of Post Oak Motor Cars, a Rolls-Royce dealer in Houston. "in the past, these, these would be established MVPs and so on. These are the young guys that are just coming on to the scene."

Some other factors have also helped Rolls-Royce attract customers who are even a bit younger than the average extraordinarily rich person. First, the products have changed a lot over the last couple of decades. Besides the iconic and enormous Phantom, Rolls-Royce has introduced smaller -- but still far from compact -- cars like the Ghost, which was recently released in a redesigned version with more understated styling.

"They mad it into a much, I don't want to say 'sporty,' but sleeker, much cooler version of Rolls-Royce," Milton Pedraza, CEO of the Luxury Institute, a marketing consulting firm, said of the brand's new models

Most important, though, according to Rolls-Royce and its dealers, were two additions to the lineup. First there's the Cullinan SUV, introduced in 2019. It's appealing to younger customers, particularly those with families, said Fritches. Besides its practicality as an SUV, it fits in better with other vehicles on the road today and seems less ostentatious than one of the big sedans.

Fadi Zaya, a 36-year-old Los Angeles-based luxury car consultant -- he helps wealthy clients buy rare ultra-luxury cars -- bought a Rolls-Royce Cullinan for himself even though, he admits, he didn't like it at first. Now it's his favorite.

"I know others in the younger generation who like the SUV because it just feels younger," he said.

In his SUV, Zaya got one of Rolls-Royce's popular options, a "starlight headliner" on the ceiling that twinkles with tiny lights like stars in a night sky. His was customized, though, so that the "stars" are arranged to resemble the sky on the night he was born, he said. (By default, the starlight headliner is arranged to resemble the stars over the Rolls-Royce factory on the night the first Phantom was built under BMW's ownership in 2003.)

Another factor bringing in younger buyers, according to dealers and company executives, is the Black Badge option package. On Rolls-Royce Black Badge versions, most of the chrome parts, such as the grille and the Spirit of Ecstasy statuette that rides above it, are made with dark, smokey blackened chrome. The suspension on these models is also tuned for slightly sportier handling although -- this is Rolls-Royce, after all -- the emphasis remains on a silky-smooth ride.

The Black Badge option was designed specifically to appeal to younger buyers who want something less flashy than Rolls-Royce's traditional bright chrome, and it seems to be working. It's growing in popularity, said Jennifer Stroup, brand manager for Rolls-Royce Beverly Hills.

"We're seeing more Black Badge orders than we have in the past, than we have in a long time," said Stroup. "I mean, it's a $50,000 option. It's definitely a big choice."

Rolls-Royce recently started its own social media and content app, called Whispers. Available only to Rolls-Royce owners, Whispers has the sort of content often put into the slick magazines many car brands send their owners. Whispers also provides opportunities to interact with other owners and offers of things like special travel packages.

More than a quarter of Rolls-Royce owners in the Americas are Whispers members, according to the automaker, and they tend to be younger. The app provides entree into a world of others with, evidently, similar tastes and bank balances.

"It's just unbelievable," says Kaan-Lilly, "I mean, just networking, meeting friends, clients."

It seems clique-ish, but that sort of thing has strong appeal for people at these levels of wealth and power, said the luxury brand consultant Padraza.

"You want to know that the people you are meeting are safe and are your tribe," he said. "That's just the way the world has clustered."

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

macamilarincon

(CNN) -- El gobierno del presidente de Estados Unidos, Joe Biden, está en las etapas finales de identificar las unidades militares específicas que quiere enviar a Europa del Este y de redactar las órdenes militares en un esfuerzo por disuadir a Rusia, que ha concentrado decenas de miles de tropas en la frontera con Ucrania, según varios funcionarios de defensa estadounidenses.

No se ha tomado una decisión final, pero CNN informó que Biden discutió con sus principales funcionarios militares las opciones para reforzar los niveles de tropas estadounidenses en el Báltico y Europa del Este, según un alto funcionario. La conversación ocurrió durante una sesión informativa en Camp David este sábado, de acuerdo a la fuente.

ANÁLISIS | Biden aumenta la presión mientras Putin estudia la invasión de Ucrania

Despliegue de Estados Unidos en Europa en medio de advertencias

Los posibles despliegues de tropas ocurren en medio de advertencias de Estados Unidos acerca de que una posible invasión rusa de Ucrania podría ser inminente. El Departamento de Estado redujo este domingo el personal de la embajada de EE.UU. en Kyiv, Ucrania. Se ordenó la salida del personal no esencial y de miembros de familia por "mucha precaución".

Los detalles sobre la reunión entre Blinken y Lavrov en Ginebra 3:35

Una opción que la administración de Biden considera es trasladar entre 1.000 y 5.000 soldados. Justamente, tanto para apuntalar a los aliados de Europa del Este y el Báltico como para que estén disponibles en caso de que sea necesario evacuar a ciudadanos estadounidenses, según un alto funcionario de defensa.

El objetivo de enviar refuerzos militares a Europa del Este sería proporcionar disuasión y tranquilizar a los aliados. Tampoco hay ninguna sugerencia de que las tropas estadounidenses se desplegarán en Ucrania o participarán en funciones de combate.

Aliados de la OTAN envían buques y aviones de combate adicionales a los despliegues en Europa del Este

Estados Unidos envió dos cargamentos de armas a Ucrania durante la semana pasada. Esto como parte de la asistencia de seguridad dirigida recientemente para ayudar a reforzar el ejército de Ucrania.

La OTAN no se queda atrás

Los países de la OTAN también enviaron barcos y aviones de combate adicionales a Europa del Este, además de poner fuerzas en espera, dijo este lunes el secretario general de la organización, Jens Stoltenberg, en un comunicado.

"La OTAN continuará tomando todas las medidas necesarias para proteger y defender a todos los aliados. Incluido el refuerzo de la parte oriental de la alianza", dijo Stoltenberg.

La evaluación de inteligencia más reciente del Ministerio de Defensa de Ucrania indica que Rusia ahora ha desplegado más de 127.000 soldados en la región. Mientras tanto, funcionarios estadounidenses han dicho que Rusia está en condiciones de lanzar una invasión en cualquier momento.

Los funcionarios estadounidenses aún no saben qué planea hacer el presidente de Rusia, Vladimir Putin, o si ha decidido invadir Ucrania. Pero, algunos funcionarios que han visto la inteligencia dicen que hay evidencia de que Rusia planea intentar tomar Kyiv y derrocar al gobierno, como han informado CNN anteriormente.

La oficina de Relaciones Exteriores del Reino Unido dijo en un comunicado este sábado que tiene información de que el gobierno ruso planea "instalar un líder prorruso en Kyiv mientras considera si invadir y ocupar Ucrania".

Rusia niega que esté planeando una invasión

Por su parte, Moscú niega que esté planeando una invasión. En ese sentido, acusa a Estados Unidos y la OTAN de aumentar las tensiones en su apoyo a Ucrania. El Kremlin desestimó este lunes los reportes sobre los planes para instalar a un líder prorruso en Ucrania como "histeria".

"Las tensiones están aumentando debido a acciones concretas tomadas por Estados Unidos y la OTAN", dijo el portavoz del Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov. "Quiero decir, la histeria informativa que estamos presenciando. Está generosamente enmarcada por una gran cantidad de información falsa, solo mentiras y falsedades", añadió.

ANÁLISIS | Ni Biden ni Putin pueden darse el lujo de perder en su duelo por Ucrania

Funcionarios del Departamento de Estado dijeron a los periodistas este domingo que la decisión de reducir el personal en la embajada no se debió a ningún cambio en los niveles de amenaza a los diplomáticos estadounidenses en el país. Los funcionarios explicaron que la medida para reducir el personal de la embajada e instar a los estadounidenses en el país a irse se debió en parte a que la asistencia del Departamento de Estado se vería "gravemente afectada" si hay una acción militar rusa en Ucrania.

Además de la reducción del personal de EE.UU. en su embajada en Kyiv, el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Reino Unido también anunció el lunes que parte del personal de la embajada británica y sus dependientes serían retirados en respuesta a las crecientes amenazas de Rusia.

Los 5 ejércitos más poderosos del planeta en 2022 0:47

EE.UU. continúa comunicándose diplomáticamente con Rusia. Pero, las conversaciones recientes no lograron ningún avance. Rusia dijo que Estados Unidos y la OTAN deben comprometerse a nunca admitir a Ucrania en la organización y retirar los despliegues militares de los países de Europa del Este, incluidos Rumania y Bulgaria. Estados Unidos ha dicho repetidamente que estas demandas son imposibles. Aunque, el secretario de Estado, Antony Blinken, indicó la semana pasada que Estados Unidos respondería por escrito a las demandas de Moscú luego de su reunión con el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Rusia, Sergey Lavrov.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

By Anneken Tappe, CNN Business

Wall Street was in the red again Monday as investors worried about the Federal Reserve's policy plans, the tensions in Ukraine, earnings season and -- of course -- inflation.

Stocks opened sharply lower and the S&P 500, the broadest measure of the US equity market, was on track to end the day in correction territory, defined as a 10% drop from its most recent peak.

The S&P 500 was trading 2.6% lower in the late morning. Last week, the index logged its worst week since March 2020. The Dow fell nearly 700 points, or 2%.

The Nasdaq Composite, which entered correction territory last week, was the biggest loser of the morning, trading down 3% in the late morning.

Investors have a lot on their plate this week.

Earnings season has moved on to big tech, including Microsoft, IBM, Intel and Apple, which report results this week.

Then there's the Fed meeting, concluding with Wednesday's policy statement and subsequent press conference. As of Monday morning, market expectations for this week are that the central bank will keep interest rates near zero for a little longer, according to the CME FedWatch tool. But for the next meeting, which isn't until March, expectations of a quarter-percentage-point rate hike are above 80%.

Expectations are only part of the game. The Fed could also conclude that inflation has run too hot at the end of 2021 and crank up rates more -- or sooner.

Treasury yields, which track interest rate expectations, were off last week's highs Monday. The 10-year bond yielded 1.72% late Monday morning after climbing past 1.8% for the first time since before the pandemic last week.

While the Fed is trying to get inflation down by normalizing its pandemic-era policies, the US economy is grappling with the fallout from the Omicron variant. America's private sector output growth slowed in January as the highly infectious variant put more pressure on the already-battered supply chain and existing labor shortage, according to the IHS Markit flash composite purchasing managers' index.

Making matters worse, investors are anxiously watching the situation in Ukraine as fears mount that the country could be invaded by Russia.

The news that the United States and United Kingdom are withdrawing some staff from the local embassies isn't exactly breeding confidence the situation will resolve quickly and European stock markets are sharply lower as well.

Commodities markets are feeling the pressure of the rising tensions. US oil prices rose some 3%, or more than $2.50 per barrel, to $82.54 in the late morning.

-- CNN Business' Julia Horowitz contributed to this report.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

By Chloe Melas, CNN

Evan Rachel Wood powerfully speaks out about the abuse she says she experienced in a new documentary.

"Phoenix Rising -- Part I: Don't Fall" premiered over the weekend at the Sundance Film Festival. In the film, Wood details her alleged abuse by her ex-fiance, Marilyn Manson.

Wood began working on the project before she publicly named Manson for the first time last year in an Instagram post, stating he "horrifically abused" her for years.

Manson, whose real name is Brian Warner, has previously denied Wood's claims. He also issued the following statement to the filmmakers through his attorney.

"[Warner] vehemently denies any and all claims of sexual assault or abuse of anyone. These lurid claims against my client have three things in common -- they are all false, alleged to have taken place more than a decade ago and part of a coordinated attack by former partners and associates of Mr. Warner who have weaponized the otherwise mundane details of his personal life and their consensual relationships into fabricated horror stories."

Wood and Manson first met when she was 18 and he was 38. They got engaged in 2010, but ended their relationship a few months later.

Wood testified in front of Congress in 2018 about surviving sexual assault to advocate for other survivors.

The film, directed by Amy Berg, will premiere in two parts on HBO later this year.

(HBO and CNN are both part of WarnerMedia.)

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNN Business

If you use payment apps like Venmo, PayPal or CashApp, the new year ushered in a change to an IRS tax reporting rule that could apply to some of your transactions.

The new rule, which took effect January 1, doesn't impose any additional taxes on payment app users. But it does make it harder for someone to evade existing taxes owed if they're getting paid through an app for business transactions.

Payment app providers now must issue you and the IRS a Form 1099-K on your business transactions if, combined, they total more than $600 a year. It used to be they only needed to do so if you had more than 200 business transactions in a year that totaled at least $20,000.

A business transaction is defined as payment for a good or service, including tips. So it does not include personal transactions, such as being reimbursed by a friend for dinner or receiving money to pay for a group gift.

The new requirement -- included in the American Rescue Plan, which was signed into law last year -- will apply to tax year 2022 and beyond. That means the first 1099-Ks issued under the new, lower threshold won't go out until early 2023.

But look out for communications from your app provider about the change and what, if anything, you'll need to do, such as provide more information to the company or better identify the nature of your transactions.

"[Payment app providers] are relying on consumer prompts and interfaces to help consumers classify the reportable versus non-reportable transactions on the front end, and then [providing] educational pieces, like FAQs, to help the consumer understand the details of the new reporting requirements if they receive a 1099," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government relations at the Electronic Transactions Association.

Venmo, for instance, has an updated FAQ that notes "customers may receive an in-app notification or email ... asking to confirm the information they use when filing their taxes. ... By providing this information, customers will be able to continue using their Venmo account to seamlessly accept payments for goods and services without any issue in 2022 and beyond."

When they go to send a payment to someone, Venmo users should see a toggle at the bottom of their screen that lets them indicate whether the money being sent is for a purchase of goods or services.

PayPal, which owns Venmo, is offering similar guidance for users of its app, a company spokesperson said.

Square's Cash App includes a partially updated page for users with Cash App for Business accounts. On it the company notes, "this new $600 reporting requirement does not apply to personal Cash App accounts. Instead, it only pertains to Cash for Business accounts, and applies only to payments received in 2022."

CashApp has not replied to requests for comment on how it will handle reporting for accounts in which users might mix personal and potentially reportable business transactions.

As for anyone used to making a little money on the side by occasionally renting out their place on Airbnb, or selling some handmade goods on Etsy, the new $600 reporting threshold will affect you, too. Those online platforms are likely to issue you and the IRS a 1099-K as well.

But anyone who uses The Zelle Network -- which sends money directly between US bank accounts -- will not receive a 1099-K for business transactions because Zelle's parent company, Early Warning Systems, said Zelle is exempt from the reporting rule and issued an FAQ on the matter.

"The law requiring the issuance of forms 1099-K applies to third-party payment networks that handle the settlement of funds. Payments between friends and family, and eligible small businesses sent through the Zelle Network are not subject to this law because Zelle facilitates messaging between financial institutions, but does not hold accounts or handle settlement of funds," Early Warning said in an emailed statement.

But here is the key thing to keep in mind in every circumstance: Whether or not your payment app or any other electronic payment platform you use issues a 1099-K to you, you still must keep good records of your business transactions and pay whatever taxes you owe on your income-generating sales of a good or service, including tips.

And if you do get a 1099-K from a third-party payment provider that is incorrect -- perhaps because that old furniture you sold when you moved went for less than you paid for it -- it will be on you to document to the IRS why the money you received is not taxable income.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

By Toyin Owoseje, CNN

Jeff Franklin, Hollywood producer and creator of the hit ABC sitcom "Full House," has put his sprawling Beverly Hills mansion on the market for $85 million.

Known as the Cielo Estate, the 21,000-square-foot Andalusian-inspired property boasts nine bedrooms and 18 bathrooms. The resort-style grounds feature a 75-yard pool with a trio of waterfalls, two hot tubs, a 35-foot water slide, swim-up bar, grotto, koi pond and a lazy river, the real estate agent's listing states.

While the listing says the estate, near the secluded neighborhood of Benedict Canyon, showcases "unparalleled luxury in the most desirable zip code in the world," it makes no mention of the property's sad history.

Built in 1996, the Cielo Estate occupies the plot previously known as 10050 Cielo Drive, where five of the Manson Family cult's most notorious murders took place.

In 1969, actress Sharon Tate, teenager Steven Parent, Folger coffee heiress Abigail Folger, aspiring writer Wojciech Frykowski and hairstylist Jay Sebring were killed by three members of the cult, who had broken into the property, which was owned by Tate and her film director husband, Roman Polanski.

The murders took place both inside and outside the plot's original, smaller house, which was demolished in 1994.

Franklin, whose other credits include "Hangin' with Mr. Cooper" and "Malcolm & Eddie," paid just over $6 million when he bought the unfinished property two decades ago, the Wall Street Journal reports. The 66-year-old star upgraded it significantly with the help of architect Richard Landry.

The Inglewood-born screenwriter told the publication that the connection to the Manson murders was "irrelevant" and "ancient history," adding: "It's had absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever."

The Cielo Estate sale is being handled by brothers Josh and Matt Altman, who are best known for appearing in Bravo! show "Million Dollar Listing Los Angeles."

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

By Sean Lyngaas, CNN

Russia would consider conducting a cyberattack on the US homeland if Moscow perceived that a US or NATO response to a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine "threatened [Russia's] long-term national security," according to a Department of Homeland Security intelligence bulletin obtained by CNN.

"Russia maintains a range of offensive cyber tools that it could employ against US networks--from low-level denials-of-service to destructive attacks targeting critical infrastructure," says the January 23 memo, which DHS distributed to critical infrastructure operators and state and local governments.

Despite US tensions with Russia over Ukraine, DHS analysts assess that Moscow's threshold for conducting disruptive or destructive cyberattacks on the US homeland "probably remains very high," the memo says. "[W]e have not observed Moscow directly employ these types of cyber attacks against US critical infrastructure--notwithstanding cyber espionage and potential prepositioning operations in the past."

CNN has requested comment from DHS, which regularly distributes intelligence to private firms and state and local governments.

US officials have been bracing for potential retaliatory cyberattacks from the Kremlin as Russia has threatened to invade Ukraine by amassing some 100,000 troops along the Ukraine border. The Treasury Department held a classified briefing that covered the issue for big US banks, while the Energy Department has briefed America's largest electric utilities on Russian cyber capabilities, CNN previously reported.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

macamilarincon

(CNN) -- Los tres expolicías que ayudaron a Derek Chauvin a contener a George Floyd en una calle de Minneapolis en mayo de 2020 serán juzgados en una corte federal desde este lunes por violar los derechos civiles de Floyd.

George Floyd murió hace un año y hay detalles traumáticos por todas partes. ¿Cómo manejar el trauma por su muerte?

J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane y Tou Thao enfrentan cargos de violación de derechos bajo el pretexto de la ley por supuestamente no proporcionarle asistencia médica a Floyd el 25 de mayo de 2020, según señala la acusación formal. Thao y Kueng también están acusados de no intervenir en el uso de fuerza irrazonable de Chauvin, cuando se arrodilló sobre el cuello y la espalda de Floyd durante más de 9 minutos.

Kueng, Lane y Thao se declararon inocentes de los cargos federales, mientras que Chauvin admitió su culpabilidad en diciembre como parte de un acuerdo. Además, a Chauvin lo condenaron en Minnesota el año pasado por cargos estatales de homicidio accidental, homicidio no intencional con desprecio por la vida y homicidio no intencional en la comisión del delito grave.

Los expolicías de Minneapolis acusados de violar los derechos civiles de George Floyd se declaran "inocentes"

Un jurado de cinco hombres y siete mujeres se seleccionó para el caso de los policías el pasado jueves en una corte federal en St. Paul, Minnesota. Las declaraciones de apertura en el juicio están programadas para el lunes a las 10 a.m., hora local.

El juicio comienza unos 20 meses después de que Floyd, un hombre negro de 46 años, fuera esposado y presionado contra el pavimento boca abajo durante un arresto. Un video desgarrador que grabó un transeúnte muestra a Floyd jadeando por aire, mientras suplicaba a los policías: "No puedo respirar" y llamaba a su madre.

¿Qué cambió con la policía a un año de muerte de Floyd? 3:31

Los agentes llamaron a los servicios médicos pero no le proporcionaron ayuda a Floyd, quien quedó inconsciente y dejó de respirar. Él estuvo en la misma posición hasta que llegaron los paramédicos y levantaron su cuerpo inerte en una ambulancia. Lo declararon muerto más tarde esa noche.

El video de sus últimos momentos desató protestas generalizadas y fuertes disturbios en un movimiento social contra la brutalidad policial y la injusticia racial. Menos de dos años después, volver a revivir el homicidio sigue siendo especialmente difícil para la familia de Floyd.

Derek Chauvin se declara culpable de violar los derechos civiles de George Floyd

"Este juicio será otra experiencia dolorosa para la familia Floyd, que una vez más debe revivir su extenuante muerte con detalles insoportables", dijeron en un comunicado Ben Crump, Antonio Romanucci y Jeff Storms, abogados de la familia Floyd. "En nombre del equipo legal y la familia, confiamos y esperamos que un jurado imparcial que represente a la comunidad será seleccionado para hacer este importante trabajo".

El caso federal es diferente a los cargos estatales por la muerte de Floyd. Kueng, Lane y Thao se han declarado inocentes de los cargos estatales de instigación y complicidad, y ese juicio está programado tentativamente para junio.

¿En qué se concentrará este juicio contra los 3 expolicías por la muerte de George Floyd?

A los tres policías los acusan de violar los derechos civiles de George Floyd por sujetarlo en una calle de Minneapolis el 25 de mayo de 2020.

La evidencia en el juicio federal probablemente será muy similar al juicio por asesinato que enfrentó Chauvin en la corte estatal de Minnesota el año pasado. Los fiscales federales señalaron en documentos judiciales que planean buscar el testimonio de testigos que vieron a los policías sujetar a Floyd, de expertos en el uso de la fuerza policial y de expertos médicos.

Sin embargo, a diferencia de ese caso, los procedimientos no serán televisados porque el tribunal federal no permite cámaras.

Reacciona joven que grabó la muerte de Floyd a veredicto 0:44

Las acciones de los tres expolicías durante el arresto de Floyd en mayo de 2020 se mostraron en detalle durante el juicio estatal contra Chauvin, a través de videos de transeúntes, cámaras corporales de la policía e imágenes de vigilancia.

Chauvin, el de mayor rango entre los cuatro agentes, colocó a Floyd boca abajo en la calle y se arrodilló sobre su cuello y espalda. Kueng sujetó el torso de Floyd y Lane sostuvo sus piernas, mientras que Thao se paró cerca y bloqueó a los transeúntes preocupados para que no se acercaran ni intervinieran.

George Floyd estaba "intentando respirar con sus dedos y nudillos" mientras Derek Chauvin lo sujetaba, dijo experto durante el juicio

Los policías mantuvieron a Floyd en esa posición, esposado y boca abajo en el suelo, durante 9 minutos y 29 segundos, dijeron los fiscales durante el juicio de Chauvin. Los uniformados en ningún momento movieron a Floyd a una posición de recuperación lateral para ayudarlo con su respiración.

Durante la restricción, se escucha a Lane preguntar: "¿Deberíamos ponerlo de lado?". A lo que Chauvin responde: "No, lo dejaremos donde lo tenemos", según los videos de la cámara corporal. Minutos después, Lane volvió a decir: "¿Quieres ponerlo de lado?", según muestran los videos. Kueng revisó el pulso de Floyd pero no pudo detectarlo.

Testimonio desgarrador de los vecinos de Floyd por juicio a Chauvin 3:48

Los cuatro policías fueron despedidos tras la publicación del video de un testigo. Días después, los arrestaron y acusaron.

Thao ejerció como policía durante más de ocho años, mientras que Lane y Kueng eran agentes novatos con solo unos pocos días de experiencia, según una denuncia penal.

Chauvin se declaró culpable en diciembre pasado de cargos federales por violar los derechos civiles de Floyd durante el arresto. También se declaró culpable en otro caso federal diferente, en el que lo acusan de violar de los derechos a un niño de 14 años en 2017 por arrodillarse sobre la espalda y el cuello de un adolescente esposado que no se resistió.

Como parte de ese acuerdo de culpabilidad, Chauvin enfrenta una sentencia de entre 20 y 25 años de prisión que se cumplirá simultáneamente con su sentencia actual de 22,5 años por los cargos estatales de homicidio.

Jason Kravarik, de CNN, contribuyó a este informe.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

Over the weekend, the Arizona Democratic Party voted to formally censure one of its own -- Sen. Kyrsten Sinema -- after she opposed changing the filibuster rules to allow major voting rights legislation to pass the Senate with just 50 votes.

The move was made as a "result of her failure to do whatever it takes to ensure the health of our democracy," according to Arizona Democratic Party Chair Raquel Terán.

On one level, the censure is purely symbolic. It amounts to a sort of slap on the wrist to the senator for behaving in a way that some party insiders dislike. On the other, it speaks to a broader question: How much political trouble is Sinema actually in? Or, put another way: Is she in real jeopardy of losing her seat in a reelection race?

"Sinema needs to watch out for a potential Democratic primary," longtime Democratic strategist Paul Begala said over the weekend. "I do think she is in some political peril."

Which is, in the main, true. Arizona Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego has been public about his frustrations with Sinema and his interest in taking her on. "To be honest, I have gotten a lot of encouragement from elected officials, from senators, from unions, from your traditional Democratic groups, big donors," Gallego told CNN's Manu Raju last week. "Everything you can imagine under the sun."

As a Hispanic member of Congress with a clearly liberal voting record, there's reason to think that Gallego, if he ran, would be a potentially formidable primary foe.

That said, there's reason to be at least somewhat skeptical about predictions of Sinema's certain doom. Several reasons, in fact. Consider this:

1) Sinema is not up for reelection until 2024. Time is a great healer of political wounds. What may look, in the moment, like a political death sentence, can look very different two years on. Sinerma didn't get this far in politics -- she's held seats in the Arizona state House and state Senate as well as in the US House prior to the Senate -- by having a tin ear, politically speaking. (Worth noting: Sinema's first experience in politics was as a spokeswoman for Ralph Nader's Green Party candidacy for president in 2000. And she first ran for office in 2002 as an independent for state House; she lost.)

2) She won't get caught flat-footed. Sinema, more than two years before her next race, ended September 2021 with more than $4.4 million in the bank. Gallego, for what it's worth, had $786,000 in the bank.

3) The primary process helps her. In Arizona, voters unaffiliated with either party can choose which primary they want to vote in. And those voters are the fastest growing bloc in the state's electorate. Sinema will aggressively court those unaffiliated voters, which, in theory, should be more in line with her centrist policies than hardcore Democratic loyalists.

4) She's a strong general election candidate. Arizona is no Democratic stronghold. Yes, Joe Biden carried it in 2020 -- but by less than 11,000 votes. Sinema's centrism is, in a general election context, a major help. There are simply not enough Democrats in the state to put a candidate (like, say, Gallego) over the top without appealing more broadly to the middle of the electorate.

None of that is to say that Sinema isn't in real trouble and/or won't face a serious primary challenge in 2024. She almost certainly will -- whether it's from Gallego or some other more liberal alternative.

What it is to say is that two years is a very long time in politics. And Sinema is a tested and able politician.

Writing her political obituary today is extremely premature.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

By Rachel Ramirez, CNN

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up a case that could limit the federal government's jurisdiction over wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act.

The case comes as the Biden administration is actively redefining the boundaries of the waters of the US in an effort to undo Trump-era rollbacks to federal protections.

The petitioners in the case, Michael and Chantell Sackett, are asking the court to revisit a 2006 decision that resulted in two ways of interpreting where the Clean Water Act's domain ends. The Sacketts argue that the plurality opinion in that case, led by the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, concluded that the law's requirements encompasses actual navigable waters and wetlands only with a "continuous surface connection."

The Sacketts' attorneys say if the justices decide to back Scalia's narrower test of wetlands, the couple could avoid obtaining costly federal permits to build on their property.

In the 2006 case, former Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a separate concurring opinion that concluded the rule should apply to wetlands that have a "significant nexus" to surrounding waters, where changes to those wetlands would have an impact on nearby waters, even if they aren't directly connected.

Kennedy's test for determining covered wetlands was the broader of the two, and federal courts have favored it in rulings on the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.

The Environmental Protection Agency in December proposed a rule that would expand the waters protected by the Clean Water Act in an effort to undo Trump-era rollbacks. The agency proposed reverting to a broader, Obama-era definition of the Waters of the US, or WOTUS, which the Clean Water Act can be applied to. The public comment period on that proposal ends on February 7.

Legal experts have questioned whether the Supreme Court should weigh in on Sackett v. EPA while a new definition is still being crafted.

Pat Parenteau, a professor at Vermont Law School, told CNN that the new rules likely won't be the final word, and litigation against the Biden administration is sure to follow.

"The practical effect of all this back and forth is that more wetlands and streams are now protected than was the case under the Trump rule," Parenteau said. "But the controversy has not gone away and there is sure to be much more litigation with the prospect for conflicting judicial opinions."

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

By Ben Morse, CNN

Kansas City Chiefs 42, Buffalo Bills 36. An instant classic that'll be remembered for years to come.

Whether it be for the big-name players, the remarkable quarterback play or for the dramatic back-and-forth nature of it, their playoff encounter will live long in the memory.

However, for some, the game's ending did leave somewhat of a sour taste in the mouth.

Having won the coin toss at the beginning of overtime, Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes connected with Travis Kelce for a walk-off touchdown on the first possession of extra time.

Such are the rules of overtime in the NFL, Josh Allen and his red-hot offense never got the chance to reply, annoying many neutral spectators.

Some called it the "worst rule in sports," while others jokingly called for US President Joe Biden step in and fix the rule.

And while Allen, shortly after suffering the crushing defeat, was magnanimous about the current OT rules, it's raised the question: should they be changed to allow both teams the opportunity to score?

Adding time

According to NFL rules, in the 10-minute overtime period: "Each team must possess, or have the opportunity to possess, the ball. The exception: if the team that gets the ball first scores a touchdown on the opening possession."

In essence, if the receiving team does not score a touchdown on its first possession (or if the kicking team does not score a touchdown on a turnover), the game continues.

The current system has been in place since the 2011 postseason.

According to the Stathead database, there have been a little over 160 overtime games under the current rules for winning in overtime (including the postseason). The team that got the ball first has won 52% of the time. The team that kicked off has won 42% of the time. The rest were ties, which happens in regular season games when no one scores during the now 10-minute overtime period.

These rules differ from those in college football; rules which are arguably fairer than the NFL's.

In college football, each team -- regardless of who wins the overtime coin toss -- gets a chance to go on offense from the other's 25 yard-line in the first overtime.

Whereas, in the NFL, teams hope to win the coin toss and win the game at the first time of asking, in the collegiate game, the team that wins the toss usually decides to go on defense first because they will know if the other team scored a touchdown, a field goal or failed to score. Based on that, the team that goes second can choose to be more or less aggressive when they get on offense.

According to data from Oklahoma State's Rick Wilson, a professor at the Spears School of Business, and through some research of box scores from Sports Reference, there have been nearly 300 overtime games involving Division I Football Bowl Subdivision teams from 2013-2021.

The team that received the ball second won 49.7% of the time since 2013, or right about 50% of the time.

While the NFL is unlikely to make changes off the back of one game, the wheels of motion might have been kicked into gear.

Calling for change

While Allen didn't immediately express disappointment at the overtime rules, there wasn't a shortage of players, past and present, chiming in in his absence.

"Great game by both teams but the overtime rules have got to change!! No coin flip should have that much power," Detroit Lions wide receiver Amon-Ra St. Brown said.

Former Carolina Panthers tight end Greg Olsen also expressed his frustration at the rule.

"If you are still arguing, in a game like that, it's not in best interest of EVERYONE that both Mahomes and Allen get the ball in (overtime) I don't know what to tell you," he said on Twitter.

"In a game where neither team could stop the other at the end, a literal coin flip determined the ending."

In fact, in 2019, after the Chiefs lost to the New England Patriots in overtime without even touching the ball, Kelce weighed in: "I'm definitely in favor of [both sides getting the ball in overtime]," he said.

Visit CNN.com/sport for more news, features, and videos

"Being in that situation, really having no control, no rebuttal or no retaliation on playing against an amazing offense like that -- it kind of sucked."

In the months following that, NFL Insider Ian Rapoport reported that the Chiefs put forward a proposal that would've forced both teams to possess the ball.

The proposal reportedly did not gain enough support and so was thrown out, but the future could have been very different if it had...

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.