The World and Everything in It: April 10, 2023

PREROLL: The World and Everything in It is made possible by listeners like me. My name is Garrett Brandt. All of the reporting enriches my commute to work as general counsel of a real estate broker in San Antonio, Texas. But I really look forward to the Legal Docket segments on Mondays. I hope you will enjoy today’s program.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The law says you can’t encourage illegal immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, but does that violate the Constitution?

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So why should we uphold a statute that criminalizes words?  But that's what we're doing with this statute. It's a first of a kind.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket.

Also today, the Monday Moneybeat. The I-R-S releases its plan on how it’s going to spend that $80-billion-dollars on tax enforcement, but it’s light on details. We’ll talk about that and more.

BARACK OBAMA: We don’t yet have all the answers. But we do know that multiple people have been wounded.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, April 10th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Democrats on Abortion pill ruling » The future of abortion pills is uncertain after conflicting rulings by federal courts.

On Friday, a federal judge in Texas ordered a hold on the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. That’s one of two pills in the abortion drug cocktail.

Carol Tobias is president of the National Right to Life Committee.

CAROL TOBIAS: The FDA pushed this through without going through the regular standard protocols to make sure that this is safe as proponents of abortion like to claim. So I think it was a great ruling. Great for unborn children and women.

But a different federal judge in Washington state ruled the same day in favor of states that sued to keep the pills’ approval intact.

The Biden administration quickly filed an appeal to the Texas judge’s ruling.

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra on CNN’s “State of the Union”:

XAVIER BECERRA: One judge in one court in one state turned upside down the FDA approval process for safe and effective medications. We have to go to court and and seek the an appeal.

Many have long argued the drugs were improperly approved.

Ukraine latest »

SOUND: [Rescuers talking in Ukrainian]

In the Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia, rescuers pull a woman from the rubble of a building after a weekend of heavy shelling by Russian forces.

At least eight civilians were killed.

SOUND: [Church service]

Many worshipers in Ukraine will celebrate Easter next Sunday according to the Orthodox calendar.

Yesterday, leaders of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine held Palm Sunday services at a monastery in Kyiv where officials recently evicted clergy from a church with historic ties to Russia.

Ukraine - Pentagon leaks » Meanwhile, the Justice Department is investigating whether Russia is behind the leak of classified military documents about the war in Ukraine.

The documents appear to come from the Pentagon and were posted on social media in the past week.

They don’t contain any war plans, and they may have been altered to minimize reports of Russian losses. It’s unknown who released the documents.  

LA teachers approve labor deal » The teachers union The Los Angeles Unified School District workers’ union has approved a labor deal. WORLD’s Josh Schumacher has more.

JOSH SCHUMACHER: The agreement increase wages by 30 percent for school workers such as aides and custodians.

The deal also includes a $1,000 bonus for employees who served during the COVID-19 pandemic. And it bolsters healthcare benefits for workers and their families.

The deal comes after a strike last month that brought the nations’ second-largest school district to a halt for three days.

The deal still has to be approved by the school district’s Board of Education which could happen as soon as next week.

For WORLD, I’m Josh Schumacher.

Tennessee lawmakers » Two ousted lawmakers from Tennessee expect to return to their seats after the Tennessee House expelled them for what it called disorderly behavior.

Former Representative Justin Jones:

JUSTIN JONES: This is not the end of their their decision to expel us is not the ultimate authority but that the people will hold them accountable.

Nashville’s Metro Council will likely vote today to reappoint Jones to his seat.

The Shelby County Council is likely to reappoint former Representative Justin Pearson to his seat, as well.

JUSTIN PEARSON: What we're seeing is the intentional political dilution of votes of people who are more progressive of communities that are filled with African Americans and people of color.

The two lawmakers, along with another who was not ousted, led a protest for increased gun control on the House floor. They used a bullhorn to lead chants by observers in the House gallery.

Gas prices » Gas prices continue to climb after major oil producing nations opted to cut oil production. Fuel price analyst Trilby Lundberg:

TRILBY LUNDBERG: Gasoline prices have jumped 14 cents per gallon in the past two weeks to $3.66 for regular grade, and this comes from the OPEC announcement that several of its member nations will be cutting supply as of May one.

Mississippi currently has the cheapest average price for regular unleaded at $3.13 cents.

California has the most expensive at roughly $4.80 cents.

I'm Kent Covington. 

Straight ahead: Oral arguments at the Supreme Court. Plus, remembering the Boston Marathon bombings ten years ago.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Monday, April 10th. You’re listening to The World and Everything in It and we thank you for joining us today. Good morning! I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s time for Legal Docket.

Today we cover three oral arguments heard at the Supreme Court in March. One dealing with trademark, one with procedure, and the other with words that can make you a criminal.

We’ll start with that one, the case of United States v Hansen. It’s a constitutional challenge to a federal law in Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1324. [Remember that last part, “Section 1324,” that’s what we’ll use for a shorthand reference.]

That law, Section 13-24, makes it a crime to encourage or induce aliens to enter the US illegally or to remain in it, and to do that encouraging or inducing for private financial gain. A conviction for that comes with up to ten years in prison.

REICHARD: Here’re the facts: A man in California named Helaman Hansen concocted a get-rich scheme. He promised to help adult illegal aliens find American citizens to adopt them … in exchange for money, of course.

Fact is that illegals over age 16 who are adopted cannot obtain citizenship in that way, but Hansen’s “customers” didn’t know that. Hundreds of people collectively paid him nearly two million dollars through this fictional enterprise.

EICHER: But the crime didn’t pay. Hansen didn’t get away with it. A federal jury in 2017 found him guilty under section 1324, among other violations.

So he appealed. The court to which he appealed found the language of section 1324 too broad. It could possibly apply even to clearly protected speech under the Constitution, so the court tossed the convictions.

REICHARD: Then the federal government took it up with the Supreme Court, pointing out that the appeals court didn’t need to interpret the words of the statute so broadly.

Here’s lawyer for the government, Brian Fletcher:

BRIAN FLETCHER: Our position here is that the statute need not and should not be read that way. Everyone agrees that in criminal law, the terms "encourage" and "induce" are terms of art that can refer narrowly to soliciting or aiding and abetting unlawful activity.

In this next clip, he mentions the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. What that means is the court prefers not to reach constitutional issues and looks first to resolve cases on less-ultimate grounds.

FLETCHER: At the very least, that's a plausible reading of the statute that ought to be adopted under the canon of constitutional avoidance because it would eliminate any overbreadth concern. …the First Amendment does not protect speech that is intended to induce or commence specific illegal activities.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back on that:

SOTOMAYOR: I think we're going to talk to the grandmother who lives with her family who's illegal or who are noncitizens. The grandmother tells her son she's worried about the burden she's putting on the family, and the son says, Abuelita, you are never a burden to us. If you want to live here -- continue living here with us, your grandchildren love having you. Are you -- can you prosecute this? And, if not, why not? So what do you tell the grandmother?

FLETCHER: I think not, Justice Sotomayor.

SOTOMAYOR: Don't -- stop qualifying with "think," because the minute you start qualifying with "think," then you're rendering asunder the First Amendment. People have to know what they can talk about.

EICHER: For the other side on behalf of the schemer, Hansen, ACLU lawyer Esha Bhandari. She doesn’t dispute the other convictions of her client. She’s taking aim at section 13-24.

ESHA BHANDARI: The government concedes that the statute is unconstitutional under its plain meaning. Instead, it asks this Court to rewrite the statute to prohibit only solicitation and aiding and abetting. But that is Congress's job, and Congress in 1952 took out the very words the government now asks this Court to write in: "solicit" and "assist."

REICHARD: She argued, why create a whole new category of unprotected speech called “criminal solicitation of civil law violations”?

BHANDARI: Otherwise, Congress and the states will be free, without any First Amendment scrutiny, to criminalize speech soliciting violations of the vast range of administrative and regulatory laws that govern us today, from mask and vaccine mandates to parking ordinances.

EICHER: And she argued that could chill free speech. 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett countered:

JUSTICE BARRETT: I mean, the statute's been on the books for a long time, and there might -- there's an absence of prosecutions. There is also an absence of demonstrated chilling effect.

BHANDARI: This Court has never required a demonstrated chilling effect.

REICHARD: Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Fletcher for the government to draw some lines:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: What do you say to the charitable organizations that say, even under your narrowing construction, there's still going to be a chill or a threat of prosecution for them for providing food and shelter and aid and recommending people for scholarships and -- and all the rest?... That's what a lot of charities do as part of their day-to-day activities with noncitizens who are not in the country lawfully.

FLETCHER: I think a couple observations.

Fletcher answered that’s conduct, not speech. So no First Amendment involvement.

Still, we’ve heard about aggressive prosecutors who use broad or vague language to go after people. That a particular law isn’t often used is small comfort.

EICHER: Okay, on to our second dispute. It’s a procedural question about arbitration.

Here’s the background. A man unwittingly gave a scammer remote access to his computer. The crook stole $30,000 from his cryptocurrency account that he created with Coinbase. That’s a cryptocurrency exchange platform.

The man, Abraham Bielski, asked Coinbase for help. Unsatisfied, he eventually sued Coinbase for violating the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. A law that requires timely, good faith investigations.

But Coinbase argues Bielski signed a contract to resolve disputes by arbitration, not in the courts. So the company asked the district court to stop litigation and compel arbitration.

REICHARD: The question for the justices is whether the court litigation can proceed even while the company pursues an appeal that might end up sending the case to arbitration.

The Federal Arbitration Act governs here, and it has confusing language that needs clarification. A decision here will have broad application across industries.

EICHER: OK, final case, this one about trademark, a frequent flier at the high court. We just had one a few weeks ago with a trademark dispute between Jack Daniels whiskey.

This time, the question is whether US trademark law extends outside of the country.

Hetronic International is an American manufacturer of remote-control devices for heavy machinery. Its international distributor was Abitron in Europe. Their contractual relationship broke down when Abitron started making identical devices and selling them under the Hetronic brand overseas.

REICHARD: Hetronic sued and won ninety million dollars in damages for trademark infringement. The district court ordered a worldwide injunction to keep Abitron from selling the products.

The question is whether that federal trademark law [called the Lanham Act] permits damages recovery when the infringement occurred outside the US and didn’t confuse American consumers. Those are two factors of trademark infringement analysis.

Abitron’s lawyer Lucas Walker argued trademarks do not extend outside of American borders:

LUCAS WALKER: Extending the Lanham Act’s reach into foreign countries would create the very risk of international friction that this court’s current extraterritoriality doctrine seeks to avoid.

EICHER: The extraterritoriality doctrine is simpler than it sounds. It means that a state may not project its power beyond its physical borders.

In general, American law does not apply outside the US, but trademark law is a little bit different. A Supreme Court opinion from 1952 permitted Bulova Watch Company to sue over knock-off watches made and sold in Mexico. But the facts were a little different there because the defendant was an American citizen. And the court has tweaked trademark practice over the years.

Still, the aggrieved company Hetronic argued things are basically still the same. Here’s its lawyer, Matthew Hellman:

MATTHEW HELLMAN: Since 1952, this court has held and repeatedly reaffirmed that the Lanham Act’s uniquely broad language reaches infringement of US marks that is carried out overseas. And during those 70 years, Congress has amended the Act 36 times, and it has never pulled back on the Act’s extraterritorial reach. The court should maintain the status quo.

REICHARD: The justices threw out hypotheticals left and right.

Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to test the limits in this exchange with Masha Hansford, representing the Biden administration who argued in support of neither party:

JUSTICE ROBERTS: I mean, let's say there is an appearance on the internet, somebody looks at it, and that person thinks, oh, that's a nice Bulova watch, or that doesn't look too good. Is that enough?

HANSFORD: No, I don't think so. And I think, in the -- in the internet context, I think even under Petitioners' test, if a website is targeting U.S. consumers so U.S. consumers can purchase the good from the website or the website will ship the goods into the United States, that is -- that is actionable, but just the possibility that somebody might see something on the internet would not satisfy any proximate cause standard.

ROBERTS: Well, but, I mean, let's say it's, you know, an influencer, what -- whatever that is, but -- (Laughter) you know, somebody -- some people -- a lot of people look at it, and -- and they see the watch. Is that enough?

REICHARD: Hansford said it would be because American consumers would be confused in that scenario, and confusion is one tool by which to analyze trademark infringement.

Other tools include whether the foreign infringement hurts US consumers, a commerce analysis. Throw in the loss of goodwill and you’ve got a recipe for legal confusion, and that’s why the Supreme Court must resolve it.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Next up on The World and Everything in It: the Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s time to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen.

He’s head of the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group and he’s here now.

David, good morning!

DAVID BAHNSEN: Well, good morning, Nick, good to be with you.

EICHER: OK, David, let’s hit two news stories off the top. The March jobs figure stayed over 200-thousand jobs mark. But it’ll be two months in a row where the jobs-added figure fell by about 100-thousand month on month. I wonder what your thought is on employment.

And second, we got a summary of what the IRS plan is for how the agency will use the increased funding for tax collection and audits. It was light on detail, it was late in coming, and Republicans in Congress barked about that last week. What are your thoughts on those items?

BAHNSEN: Well, let's start with the jobs number, which was another pretty good one, it was a little lower than last month's new jobs was. I think we came in at 236,000 in March, and we were at 326,000 in February. So not quite 100,000 less, but nevertheless, in range with expectation. So I don't think that there is any surprising news either good or bad out of the new jobs created. One thing I was a little interested in is that the private sector jobs were down. And that was the first time in about eight months that it correlated to what the ADP private payrolls had reflected a few days before. There's been a real disconnection between ADP private payroll data, and the BLS number, and this month that kind of came in hand in hand. The other thing I would say, though, is that the year over year average hourly earnings were up 4.2%, they were up by 0.3% on the month, and that 4.2% year over year is now the lowest it's been since June of 2021, almost two years. And so this is a very important thing about those who thought that we were going to go into a wage price spiral with inflation The exact opposite has taken place. The annualized growth of wages has continued to go down. And it has not beget more inflation, as many were worried about: quite the opposite.

EICHER: And don’t forget the IRS piece.

BAHNSEN: Well, I don't consider it much of a plan. They call it a strategic operating plan and, using broad terms like improving the taxpayer experience, modernizing IT systems, strengthening tax compliance in an equitable manner, those are all lovely phrases. And I guess giving us the fact that 45 billion of the 80 billion will go to enforcement, 25 billion to operations. Those are numbers we didn't have before. But you know, what do they mean by enforcement? I mean, that's the real question. How do you spend $45 billion of additional money, this needs to be really pointed out. This is not their new budget. This is a new addition to budget. Enforcement is not like a new thing that we're putting on the menu. They've been enforcing tax code and tax policy forever. This is additional enforcement. And so many people would consider the IRS to have been plenty aggressive already. What they plan to do with additional enforcement, to me is the key here and I think a lot of people are right to be skeptical.

EICHER: All right, first listener question today is from Sarah Heitzman-Nolte of Geneseo, New York. And we had a couple questions on this:

SARAH HEITZMAN-NOLTE: My question for David today is in reference to the Fed Now program that was launched on April 3, and should be up and running by July. I would like David to explain the advantages and disadvantages, if there are, of this digital central banking program.

It makes me very uneasy. But on the other hand, I don't want to just be the conservative Christian that says progress is bad, and everything that we do with technology is negative.

So, I would like to hear your thinking on this because I feel like we're just not hearing very much about it. Thank you.

BAHNSEN: I think that the question about a Federal Reserve centrally administered digital currency is getting more traction. And I first want to encourage people to put their fears aside when they consider the inefficiency of governmental administrations. This idea about the Fed modernizing the international flow of funds is something that started five years ago and has still not made any progress at all. And so sometimes they announce a kind of shiny technological project. But when you don't have the profit motive, and it is not core to what the governmental entity exists to do, it really is very hard for them to get anything done. But in this particular case, I remained totally unaware of who exactly the user would be. Those who have an appetite for a digital currency and are looking to see more transactions on the blockchain, whether through Bitcoin, or some other crypto that they believe represents a financial transaction on a ledger that seems to them more stable. Again, I think most of the people that are kind of caught up with that are people who are distrusting of government. And so in that sense, you see already a wild volatility of the value that has made it a totally un-transactable currency, nobody can really use it day to day to buy or sell anything because the value is all over the place.

And then with a Fed, where there is obviously a much more stable medium of exchange, in the short term, I don't know who exactly is appetite has an appetite for a digital version. And so to me, it's just sort of a gnat in search of a windshield. I don't believe they'll get it off the ground. And I think it is being the sort of exploration of the project is being conducted because they feel like they have to, not because there's a real problem or need they're attempting to solve.

EICHER: All right, David, I think you’ll be happy to know that we did receive email about your JP Morgan Chase shareholder resolution. Lizzie Kiesle, for example, wrote and said that our discussion last week reminded her that she has some JP Morgan stock. “As a result,” she wrote, “I voted for the first time in a shareholder meeting and voted for David’s [resolution].” And she added her appreciation that you looked into the issue and took action.

BAHNSEN: Well, I appreciate hearing that, Nick. And I'll let people know that May 16 is the date of the JP Morgan Chase annual shareholder meeting. We're right now working on getting approval not only for me to be making a case for my own resolution at the meeting, but um, to see if they will allow former governor and former Senator Sam Brownback to use some of my time to make comments as well. So there's more to be done here.

And I will say that JP Morgan has been engaged in conversation, they're certainly vehemently denying that their closing of a few of these accounts that we cite had anything to do with religious or political reasons. But nevertheless, they are denying our motion to explore and run a study as to what they're doing to avoid religious and political discrimination. And so there's more to come here and we're going to continue fighting it. And even if this shareholder resolution fails, we've already gotten a lot of attention on the issue, and we certainly appreciate WORLD listeners and their support.

EICHER: Related to that, another email: Meg Cusack of Grand Rapids, Michigan. She says she receives notifications from several companies about proxy voting (including JP Morgan).

She wants to know: Does David know of a resource for shareholders to go to to see recommendations on who to vote for on the boards and how to vote on proposals for all companies that are consistent with conservative values?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, so here's my answer, that may be a little unsatisfying. There are major resources of huge institutional shareholder services that handle proxy voting, and make recommendations, and those services unfortunately, can often be as woke and unaligned with our values as the companies themselves may be. I am working right now through an outfit called Bowyer Research, who I have retained to aid with my efforts here, where we can, at my firm provide an additional service that would include shareholder recommendations, voting, and even proxy and so forth. We're using myself as a guinea pig to try to navigate, understand the landmines, you know, engage certain management teams in conversation, and then eventually be able to offer a more scaled version as a service - not as a cost to others like like this question here. So we don't have it off the ground yet, but we're working on it and I do think gonna be vitally important that if Christians want to complain about things companies are doing that they vote around their own values, and most Christians just simply don't vote. So I think which is understandable. It's always been kind of a check the box red tape, but we're just seeking to address that. And there's more work in play right now and I'll keep you posted.

EICHER: Alright: Thanks this week to Sarah Heitzman-Nolte, Lizzie Kiesle, and Meg Cusack.

We’d love to have your question, too, and you can send it to feedback-at-world-and-everything-dot-com. I’m happy to read your email, but I always think it’s better to hear it. So take a moment, record your question in your voice on your phone’s voice memo app and attach the file. Same email address: feedback-at-world-and-everything-dot-com.

David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. David, thank you!

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, April 10th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next, the WORLD History Book. Today, the dedication of a national monument, plus the anniversary of a deadly terrorist attack. But we begin with a trip to Pennsylvania during the first great awakening. Here’s Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER, REPORTER: We begin today in the city of Philadelphia in the fall of 1739. Itinerant preacher George Whitefield visits this important center of Colonial American life for the first time. He preaches in churches, open fields, and meeting houses. Even though some city church leaders condemn his ministry, tens of thousands of people turn out to hear him and many place their faith in Christ.

Whitefield strikes up a friendship with printer Benjamin Franklin who offers to publish Whitefield’s sermons and books. Franklin is personally unswayed by Whitefield’s preaching, but he can’t deny its power. Franklin writes this in his autobiography:

It was wonderful to see the change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants; from being thoughtless or indifferent about religion…it seemed as if all the world were growing religious; so that one could not walk thro’ the town in an evening without hearing Psalms sung in different families of every street.

Whitefield leaves Philadelphia with a ship of supplies to start an orphanage in Georgia…north of Savannah. A few months later, on April 12th, 1740, George Whitefield returns to Pennsylvania. His first night back he preaches to a crowd of 3000. Word spreads quickly that the evangelist is back in town. Over the next ten days he takes up collections for the Georgia orphanage, and preaches every chance he gets. His journal records that he spoke to nearly 100,000 people during those few days.

Here’s what he writes on April 17th:

I…hastened to Philadelphia, where I preached to upwards of ten thousand people, upon the woman who was cured of her bloody issue. Hundreds were graciously melted; and, many, I hoped, not only thronged round, but also touched the Lord Jesus Christ by faith…the Word of God every day mightily prevails, and Satan loses ground apace.

According to biographer Thomas Kidd, George Whitefield is the most influential leader of the first great awakening. He goes further by calling Whitefield: “America’s spiritual founding father.” Three years ago Kidd spoke at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary:

THOMAS KIDD: Whitfield's relentless effort in entrepreneurial methods emerged from his conviction that the gospel demanded tireless work and creative tactics. Far from being a sign of theological shallowness, doctrinal conviction actually drove his innovations and method…The Gospel was that important. God's grace was that wonderful. And God had promised to draw the lost to himself through the proclamation of the gospel. To Whitfield, there was no greater imperative.

Over his lifetime, Whitefield likely preached more than 18,000 sermons in Britain and the American colonies and as many as 10 million people may have attended his meetings.

Next, April 13th, 1943:

FDR: Today, in the midst of a great war for freedom, we dedicate a shrine to freedom.

On the 200th anniversary of Thomas Jefferson’s birth, President Franklin D Roosevelt, and other dignitaries gather at the Jefferson Memorial.

During his speech, the President compares the times of the founding father with his own—framing both Jefferson’s great writings and America’s stand against Germany and Japan as a fight against tyranny. He adds that the lessons of the current war will teach a new generation—just like Jefferson did—what liberty means.

President Roosevelt ended his address by pointing out the words on the memorial itself:

FDR: The words which we have chosen for this Memorial speak Jefferson's noblest and most urgent meaning… "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Last year nearly 3-million people saw that inscription in person, making it one of the most popular memorials in Washington DC.

And finally, April 15th, 2013—10 years ago this week:

NEWS CLIP: Three dead, one an eight year old boy, more than 140 people hurt…after two bombings at the Boston Marathon.

Audio from WQAD News 8, Boston.

Four hours, nine minutes, and 43 seconds into the 117th running of the Boston Marathon, the first of two homemade bombs explode near the finish line:

SOUND: [EXPLOSION]

14 seconds later, a second pressure cooker bomb goes off. The explosions seem timed to coincide with the period of the race where the most runners finish.

The explosions kill three people—injuring 264 others. A few hours later, President Barack Obama addresses the press:

BARACK OBAMA: As we get more information, our teams will provide you briefings. We're still in the investigation stage at this point, but I just want to reiterate, we will find out who did this and we will hold them accountable. Thank you very much.

Three days after the bombing the FBI releases images of the two suspects. The two brothers can be clearly seen carrying backpacks and walking casually through the crowds. A few hours after the photo release, the Tsarnaev brothers ambush a police officer and kill him—trying unsuccessfully to steal his gun. They hijack a car but the driver eventually escapes.

A shootout on April 19th ends with the death of another police officer and one of the suspects. The younger brother flees the scene…but by 9pm that evening, he is in custody. Watertown Police Chief Edward Deveau:

PRESS CONFERENCE: We are so grateful to be here right now. We're so grateful to bring justice and a closure to this case…We are eternally grateful for the outcome. Here tonight, we have a suspect in custody.

Tsarnev is awaiting execution, though he is currently attempting to overturn the case—accusing a federal judge of brushing aside misconduct accusations related to jurors' social media comments.

The City of Boston is hosting a handful of memorial events ahead of this year’s marathon to mark the 10th anniversary of the bombing…including first responder honor guards, bell ringing, the dedication of a new commemorative finish line, and the unveiling of the One Boston Day marker on Boylston Street.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Paul Butler.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: Parental bill(s) of rights.

And, we head back to Asbury University to follow up with students and staff.

That and more tomorrow. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.

WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Psalmist writes: The righteous will flourish like a palm tree, they will grow like a cedar of Lebanon, planted in the house of the Lord, they will flourish in the courts of our God. They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green, proclaiming, “The Lord is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him.” Psalm chapter 92 verses 12-15.

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.