By All Means.

In spectacular fashion.

---

Note to Subscribers: News Items will be off the grid beginning Thursday, 4 July. The morning note will not be distributed on July 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th. Laure Sudreau’s Weekend Movie Pick returns Friday 12 July. The latest podcast, featuring Rebecca Patterson, is available here.

---

---

1. The pandemic’s babies, toddlers and preschoolers are now school-age, and the impact on them is becoming increasingly clear: Many are showing signs of being academically and developmentally behind. Interviews with more than two dozen teachers, pediatricians and early childhood experts depicted a generation less likely to have age-appropriate skills — to be able to hold a pencil, communicate their needs, identify shapes and letters, manage their emotions or solve problems with peers. A variety of scientific evidence has also found that the pandemic seems to have affected some young children’s early development. “I definitely think children born then have had developmental challenges compared to prior years,” said Dr. Jaime Peterson, a pediatrician at Oregon Health and Science University, whose research is on kindergarten readiness. “We asked them to wear masks, not see adults, not play with kids. We really severed those interactions, and you don’t get that time back for kids.” The pandemic’s effect on older children — who were sent home during school closures, and lost significant ground in math and reading — has been well documented. But the impact on the youngest children is in some ways surprising: They were not in formal school when the pandemic began, and at an age when children spend a lot of time at home anyway. The early years, though, are most critical for brain development. (Source: nytimes.com)

---

2. Amy Howe:

In a historic decision, a divided Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office, and that there is at least a presumption that they have immunity for their official acts more broadly.

The decision left open the possibility that the charges brought against former President Donald Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith – alleging that Trump conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election – can still go forward to the extent that the charges are based on his private conduct, rather than his official acts.

The case now returns to the lower courts for them to determine whether the conduct at the center of the charges against Trump was official or unofficial – an inquiry that, even if it leads to the conclusion that the charges can proceed, will almost certainly further delay any trial in the case, which had originally been scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024 but is currently on hold. (Source: scotusblog.com)

---

3. The Economist:

Although the decision in Trump v United States does not give Mr Trump everything he asked for, it is a clear practical victory for the once and possibly future president. The charges against Mr Trump for allegedly trying to thwart his electoral loss in 2020 will almost certainly not proceed before the election in November—and maybe not ever. (Source: economist.com)

---