(Photo courtesy of the Nebraska Capitol Commission)

LINCOLN — A Nebraska man convicted of a quadruple murder got the death sentence Friday from a three-judge panel.

In September 2024, Jason Jones was found guilty in Dakota County District Court of the first-degree murders of Michele Ebeling and Gene, Janet, and Dana Twiford.

In August 2022, Jones shot Ebeling and lit her home on fire before shooting and killing the Twifords and setting their home on fire as well in Laurel, Nebraska.

Attorney General Mike Hilgers responded to the ruling Friday, saying the panel came to an “appropriate” decision.

“We are grateful for the work of the three-judge panel and their thorough and well-reasoned order,” he said. “The panel laid out the horrific details surrounding the quadruple homicide Jason Jones committed and explained why the death penalty is an appropriate sentence under these facts, under the language of the Nebraska statutes, and the history of Nebraska case law where the death penalty was imposed.”

John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

(Picture credit John Gage)

LINCOLN — Governor Jim Pillen said he would continue his fight for more school choice options in Nebraska following a failure of the Legislature to pass a “stopgap” private school scholarship budget provision this year.

“We’re not going to give up on that topic,” Pillen told the media Thursday during a visit by U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon. “Even counties that did not have private schools supported school choice.”

Pillen’s comments come as the Legislature stymied a proposed $3.5 million private school scholarship program, as well as a bill that would hold back third graders who were not reading at a proficient level. Following the failure of the latter measure, the governor called for the Legislature to change its 33-vote rule to break a filibuster.

“Nebraskans are electing majorities [in] Lincoln to get work done, only to have it die by an antiquated filibuster rule,” Pillen said. “This is dysfunctional and fails to serve the will of the people of our state.”

During her visit, McMahon praised Pillen for being the first governor to opt into a federal education tax credit program, which was part of President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” The federal education tax credit program goes into effect in 2027.

Nebraska became the last state in the country without a school choice program after the ballot referendum vote repealed a $10 million annual scholarship program.

John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

READ MORE:

(Picture credit John Gage)

LINCOLN — The United States Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Trump v. Barbara over President Donald Trump’s executive order, which limited birthright citizenship to exclude children of illegal immigrants and temporary residents.

Before the attempted change by the Trump administration, the United States had been extending birthright citizenship to virtually anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ legal status. Birthright citizenship means hundreds of thousands of immigrants, legal and illegal, are giving birth to U.S. citizens each year.

The Pew Research Center released a research report last week, which showed that 9% of U.S. children were born to illegal immigrant mothers or mothers on temporary legal status. Pew estimated that 260,000 of the 3.6 million U.S. births would be affected by Trump’s birthright citizenship order if upheld.

The Plains Sentinel reached out to Jeff Passel, the researcher behind the report, to see if there was an estimate of how many Nebraskans would be affected if birthright citizenship were curtailed. Passel said that Pew did not break their report down by state, but he pointed to another report from Pew detailing a comparison of the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. broken down by state.

“About 2.8% of Nebraska’s population consists of unauthorized immigrants according to our estimates,” he said. “The national share is 4.1%. States with lower shares of unauthorized immigrants probably have lower shares of births to unauthorized immigrant mothers.”

Pew estimates that Nebraska has 55,000 illegal immigrants residing in the state as of 2023 – a number that has risen sharply from just 45,000 in 2021. Pew’s state research goes back to 1990, when Nebraska only had an estimated 5,000 illegal immigrants.

While their analysis does not provide a state-by-state breakdown of births, a conservative estimate comparing Nebraska’s illegal immigrant population to the overall birthrate means that likely over 1,000 births annually in Nebraska would be affected by the Supreme Court birthright case.

Trump’s executive order was not retroactive, so any impact on temporary workers and illegal immigrants would only take effect moving forward, pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Opponents, Proponents Argue For Rule of Law

Following Trump’s initial birthright order and a handful of additional immigration executive orders in January 2025, Governor Jim Pillen issued an executive order titled “Support for Federal Immigration Policy Implementation,” which sought to align the state of Nebraska’s policy on immigration with the Trump administration.

The order stated that “while the primary responsibility for enforcing immigration law rests with the federal government, states, counties, as well as cities and towns, have crucial roles in upholding America’s immigration laws, fighting illegal immigration, and protecting our citizens.”

In February 2025, Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers joined a coalition of Republican attorneys general, who filed an amicus brief in favor of the Trump executive order. The amicus brief argued the Trump administration’s order stemmed from a “strong incentive for illegal immigration and birth tourism in hope of providing children with citizenship.”

The group argued that “increased illegal immigration has serious costs on the States.” “President Trump’s executive order will reduce harm to the States. Indeed, given the dangers of crossing illegally into the United States, stopping the incentive to try to cross the border will likely save many would-be border crossers’ lives,” the brief argued.

Proponents of birthright citizenship have argued that it is a guaranteed right under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Last week, following the hearing of arguments of Trump v. Barbara, the ACLU of Nebraska issued a statement slamming the Trump administration’s position on birthright citizenship.

“Birthright citizenship is a clear and longstanding constitutional principle,” Mindy Rush Chipman, the executive director of ACLU Nebraska, said in a statement. “President Trump wants to redefine who belongs in our country and what rights we are born with… The courts should focus on ensuring that constitutional protections are upheld fairly and consistently, to every person in this country.”

SCOTUS Appears Divided on Issue

Supreme Court justices appeared divided over the Trump order during oral arguments last week. Trump became the first sitting president to ever attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court — signaling how important the administration perceives the issue.

Chief Justice John Roberts called some of the arguments made by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who was defending the Trump administration, “quirky” during the hearing. "I'm not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples," Roberts told Sauer after he had made the argument that birthright citizenship can be limited because children of ambassadors or enemies during a hostile invasion were exempt from it.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said that the Founding Fathers would not have recognized the type of illegal immigration issues the country is facing in modern America. “What we are dealing with here is something that was basically unknown at the time when the 14th Amendment was adopted, which was illegal immigration,” Alito said.

Following his attendance at oral arguments, Trump sent out a message on Truth Social saying America is “the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship.”

John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

READ MORE:

(Picture credit Braden Frager’s Instagram)

LINCOLN — Nebraska star basketball player and BIG 10 sixth man of the year Braden Frager said he is “coming back” to play for another year on Nebraska’s basketball team. Frager’s comment came following the Nebraska Legislature recognizing the 2025-2026 Nebraska Basketball team on Thursday.

(Picture credit John Gage)

“I’m coming back,” Frager told The Plains Sentinel when asked if he planned on returning for his sophomore year. When pressed if fellow star player Pryce Sandfort was likely to return as well, Frager nodded his head and said, “Probably.”

The comments follow speculation that Frager could be a high profile target for other teams and would command a high dollar amount in NIL money. Frager did not initially put his name in the transfer portal when it opened earlier this week.

Sandfort, Nebraska’s leading scorer during the past season, has previously stated he is weighing whether to return for his senior season or enter the NBA draft.

UPDATE: Three hours after The Plains Sentinel reporting — the University of Nebraska confirmed that Frager has officially “re-signed with Nebraska Basketball.”

John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

READ MORE:

The coalition, which called itself the Nebraska Education Collaboration, circulated a memo telling state senators to oppose both LB1050, which would provide requirements for dyslexia screening and limit advancement to fourth grade for students who were not meeting proficiency levels, and a compromise amendment by State Senator Jana Hughes, which would have required the State Department of Education to develop a model policy for reading intervention for kids in kindergarten through 3rd grade.

The original bill was modeled after a Mississippi law that would hold 3rd grade students back a grade if they did not reach proficiency levels. The measure has been praised for being the catalyst for the “Mississippi miracle,” which refers to the state going from second to last place in reading proficiency in 2013 to the top 10 in the country for reading scores. When adjusted for poverty and student demographics, the state is now number one.

Nebraska’s version of the bill failed after supporters could only muster 31 votes in an attempt to end the 33-vote filibuster. State Senator Jane Raybould led the opposition against the measure on the floor. Raybould said the bill was “distracting teachers from doing things that they know best,” and that it would put unnecessary restrictions on school districts and teachers.

The state senator cited the Nebraska Education Collaboration letter, which claimed the bill and Hughes amendment “risks limiting local control and the flexibility districts need to address the unique needs of their students, distracting from the thoughtful, research-grounded work already underway through ongoing partnerships between districts and the Nebraska Department of Education.”

State Senator Danielle Conrad criticized the public school coalition for attempting to fight a measure meant to help kids read. “Well over 90% of the concern has been left behind and resides in the original legislation,” she said, adding that the “Optics are troubling that schools are fighting tooth and nail against a policy to improve reading.”

Conrad accused opponents of the bill of engaging in “political theater.” “This shouldn’t be a filibuster, this is commonsense,” she said.

State Senator Fred Meyer, a supporter of the bill and the Hughes amendment, said opposition against the bill was a result of people not wanting to be held accountable. “Whenever you shine the bright light of accountability on some, all kinds of things happen, and that’s what I think is happening here this afternoon,” he said.

Pillen Calls Filibuster ‘Antiquated’

Following the bill’s failure, Governor Jim Pillen, who had requested the measure be introduced, expressed disappointment at lawmakers vote and took aim at the Unicameral’s 33-vote filibuster.

“Today, the Nebraska Legislature failed to advance a commonsense measure that would have held public schools accountable for the basic literacy of the kids they are entrusted to educate,” he said on Twitter. “Despite having the bipartisan support of an overwhelming majority of senators (more than 63%!), it could not even get a fair up-or-down vote because of the Legislature’s broken filibuster rule.”

Pillen went on to blame the filibuster for obstructing bills that had “the support of a clear majority of the People’s representatives.”

“Pro-Life protections, tax reform, winner-take-all, keeping men out of women’s bathrooms, and other much-needed bills have been deprived of fair up-or-down votes by a minority of the Legislature,” he added. “Nebraskans are electing majorities Lincoln to get work done, only to have it die by an antiquated filibuster rule. This is dysfunctional and fails to serve the will of the people of our state.”

Earlier this year, Democratic state senators and a handful of Republicans successfully filibustered the budget until legislative leaders agreed to take out a provision to fund scholarships to private schools for kids which Pillen had backed.

Republican state senators have complained that legislative leadership has not taken up their priority bills. Over a dozen Republican bills that were given a personal priority but were not heard on the floor, including property tax relief measures, winner-take-all, and a bill to keep biological men out of women’s locker rooms and bathrooms.

Legislative leadership has pointed to the Unicameral’s 33-vote filibuster for why some “politically charged” legislation has not been taken up.

John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

READ MORE:

State Senator Megan Hunt went on a late-night rant against President Donald Trump during Tuesday debate on the Legislature’s floor, calling for his impeachment and accusing America of committing “genocide.”

“Members of Congress must call for impeachment and removal, soldiers must resist unlawful orders, and every American who loves their country must speak out and say finally ‘enough is enough,’” she said. “In a sane country, this man would be removed from office immediately.”

The progressive state senator went on to say that the world should stand up and “rally” around Iran. “The people of Iran and its history and its culture are not disposable. It’s thousands of years old,” she said. “And the entire world should be rallying to protect them.”

“Why should we expect that when we see how the entire world has turned its back on Gaza?” Hunt blamed the “imperialist, capitalist greed” of America for humanitarian crises across the world.

Hunt later tweeted out a video of her remarks where she called American leaders “parasites” and accused the country of committing genocide.

“Trump, a con man who raped his wife and said he would marry his daughter were she not his daughter, is the logical consequence of a system that allows the world’s greatest parasites to commit a genocide for the world to witness every day on our stupid phones. He must be removed,” she said.

Hunt’s remarks follow a Tuesday threat from Trump, stating that “a whole civilization will die tonight” if the Iranian regime did not give in to his demands.

“I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” Trump said in a message sent out on Truth Social. “However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight.”

Later in the evening, The White House tweeted out that Trump had struck a two week cease fire with Iran. “The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all military objectives, and are very far along with a definitive agreement concerning longterm peace with Iran,” the statement said.

John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

(Photo courtesy of the Nebraska Legislature)

Top conservative priorities that were given a personal priority by Republican state senators, including property tax relief measures, winner-take-all, and a bill to keep biological men out of women’s locker rooms and bathrooms, did not get scheduled for debate on the floor — leaving some Republicans frustrated with how the session developed.

Each year, the speaker of the Legislature, who is responsible for setting the agenda, tries to get to as many senators’ personal priority bills as possible, but with limited time, not all of the priority bills end up getting taken up each year.

Speaker John Arch told state senators on Tuesday that the fight over the budget “took away time we could have used to debate priority bills on General and Select File.”

GOP Amendment Attempts Fail

Two Republican senators attempted to get their priority bills attached to other measures during Tuesday’s floor debate, causing outrage from Democratic senators.

Lincoln State Senator Beau Ballard attempted to bring as an amendment to a committee package his priority bill, which would allow residents in a three-mile extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction (ETJ) to vote in Lincoln city elections. Ballard argued that residents who were being regulated by the city should be able to vote for the people responsible for regulating them.

Democratic state senators unloaded a flurry of accusations against Ballard and his bill, claiming it violated the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. “My friend Senator Ballard has decided to throw a bomb, or a wrench, with his bill,” State Senator Danielle Conrad told Ballard, accusing him of trying to “dilute” votes in the city.

“I don’t want to hear anymore scolding of progressives over wasting time as long as Senator Ballard’s amendment is on the board,” State Senator Megan Hunt told the Legislature.

State Senator Machaela Cavanaugh filed a deluge of amendments ahead of Ballard’s to keep it from making it onto the committee package. Cavanaugh demanded Ballard withdraw his amendment to save time, saying there was only a “0.00001%” chance of state senators getting to his amendment.

He eventually withdrew his amendment.

Before the debate on the measure, Ballard told The Plains Sentinel that he had 33 votes secured to pass his amendment. When pressed on why the speaker did not take up his priority bill, Ballard said he was not given a reason. “I wish I knew. Arch didn’t want to take the time.”

After Ballard told colleagues he was pulling his amendment, State Senator Carolyn Bosn, a fellow Lincoln resident, said she wished the proposal could have been fully heard out because residents in the ETJ believed Lincoln was taking advantage of them.

“Constituents in my district tell me about stories about issues they have [with the city],” she said, adding that Lincoln officials would cause “headaches” for residents outside of the city limits and ignore them because they do not have any political power. “Nobody wants to listen because your vote doesn’t matter to them.”

State Senator Kathleen Kauth also attempted to amend her “bathroom bill” to require government buildings to segregate locker rooms and restrooms by sex, onto State Senator Dunixi Guereca’s bill to require paid maternity leave for state employees.

After a short debate where Republican State Senator Merv Riepe reiterated his opposition to the state being “the potty patrol,” Guereca asked the chair to rule Kauth’s amendment not “Germane,” which the chair promptly did — killing the amendment.

Republicans ‘Pissed’ Over Bill Disparity

In conversations with The Plains Sentinel, multiple Republican state senators expressed frustration that over a dozen Republican priority bills did not see the floor in contrast to just a couple of Democratic priority bills.

“Everyone is pissed,” one Republican state senator told The Plains Sentinel on background. The senator described the session as “awful” for conservative priorities.

Another GOP state senator said the speaker should have selected priority bills that reflect the political makeup of the body. “If two-thirds of the body is conservative, then two-thirds of the body needs to be heard on priority bills,” the state senator said. “So that true representation of the body is being heard.”

“I feel like there’s an effort to be impartial, and sometimes it might appear to others that it’s not impartial,” the state senator added.

Priority Bills Need 33 Votes?

Arch has told state senators that they need to show him 33 votes for a bill to see the floor. State Senator Ben Hansen, the chair of the Legislature’s Executive Board, also mentioned the 33-vote threshold in a conversation with The Plains Sentinel as to why many Republican bills did not get floor time.

The 33-vote rule appears to be more of a recommendation than a hard and fast rule. For example, Democratic State Senator John Cavanaugh’s priority bill LB933, which gave immunity to doctors recommending medical marijuana, came to the floor on March 20 and received hours of debate before advancing 30-7 on the first round of debate.

Multiple state senators noted ahead of the Select File debate on the bill that it never had 33 votes to break the filibuster. The bill died on Select File Tuesday night after Cavanaugh pulled his bill, saying it did not have the support to pass in the form he wanted it to. One state senator told The Plains Sentinel that Cavanaugh was able to bypass Arch’s 33-vote rule after trading his vote on another measure with legislative leadership.

Hansen said he understands that “some senators might see it as an ideological point” that their bills did not make the floor, but that there were other considerations made on why bills did not get heard on the floor.

He added that Republican state senators were more likely to bring politically charged legislation, while Democrats tended to try to prioritize bills they thought they could get passed.

Republican State Senator Mike Moser said that Arch takes into consideration the topic, importance, and whether a bill has the votes when deciding which bills get floor time. “There’s more that goes into the process than whether you are a Republican or a Democrat,” he said.

Moser added that “if I were speaker, I would only put Republican bills up… but that’s why I wouldn’t get voted speaker.”

John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

“We got close,” Cavanaugh said late Tuesday night during debate on the Legislature’s floor. “But in the interest and respect of what the speaker has asked that we get through more of this agenda, I’m going to ask the speaker to pull this bill so that we don’t spend more time on a bill that does not achieve the goal of making a functioning medical cannabis program available to the sick Nebraskans.”

The bill, LB933, had previously advanced 30-7 on General File. The bill appeared to lack support from the body to break a filibuster, with state senators telling The Plains Sentinel that Cavanaugh did not have 33 votes with how the bill was written.

Cavanaugh’s decision to pull his bill came after Republican state senators filed amendments he opposed onto his bill, including one amendment by State Senator Kathleen Kauth that successfully got attached that would require doctors who recommend medical marijuana to do so “based upon a preponderance of the current scientific evidence.”

Kauth additionally brought an amendment that would have attached her bill to ban children's access to puberty blockers. As soon as the debate started on the amendment, Cavanaugh pulled his bill.

Conservative lawmakers argued during both rounds of debate that Cavanaugh’s bill would lead to Nebraska functionally having recreational marijuana. State Senator Brian Hardin said Cavanaugh had based his bill on Oklahoma’s medical marijuana program, which he said was "One of the most permissive in the U.S.”

“If you want a system as broken as the one in Oklahoma,” Hardin said. “Then you start with a situation with no accountability.”

State Senator George Dungan said he thought opponents of the bill were being “disingenuous.” “[They] want to hamper access to medical marijuana,” he said, arguing that doctors were afraid of retribution from opponents of marijuana in the Legislature.

“Doctors are terrified of recommending it,” he added. “Because there is a hostile entity… They know there are actors out there ready to get them if they do give a recommendation.”

During debate on the floor, State Senator Ben Hansen, who supported LB933, referenced a letter from the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys, saying they supported Cavanaugh’s bill. The letter from the group’s president-elect, Elizabeth Govaerts, said the bill “sets forth specific baseline considerations for the prescription of medical cannabis adding an extra layer of patient protection consistent with the Nebraska statutory guidance for the prescription of opiates.”

State Senator Dan Lonowski said that it is possible the group supported the bill because they would like to see more litigation. “Of course the trial attorneys would be for this. They might have more trials to defend,” he said.

Cavanaugh’s measure was supported by Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, who ran the two ballot petitions to get medical marijuana on the state ballot. The group called the bill “foundational infrastructure” for an operational medical marijuana program in Nebraska.

John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

“FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative is concerned by the demands of Gretna East High School administrators that students remove an anti-ICE cartoon from Gretna East Media’s website, and by the school’s subsequent imposition of prior review,” the group said in a Tuesday letter they sent to the school. “We join GEM students and the Student Press Law Center in calling on you to grant GEM reporter Nicholas Mitchell’s appeal of these censorial acts, which violate student journalists’ First Amendment rights.”

The letter closed by demanding that Gretna Public Schools “rectify” their action by ending “censorship and prior review.” The group asked the district to implement a policy to protect the “expressive rights” of student journalists and told the school system they have till April 15 to respond to their letter.

When asked by The Plains Sentinel if they planned on suing the school, a FIRE spokesperson said the group “will continue monitoring the situation.” FIRE regularly sues public colleges, universities, and government agencies over First Amendment violations.

Last week, Aidan McClaren, a junior at Gretna East High School, made an appeal to the Gretna Public Schools Board of Education following his cartoon titled “ICE’s militaristic operations are history repeating” being pulled from the website of the student newspaper.

“I felt that people might not agree with it,” McClaren told Nebraska Public Media in an interview about the cartoon. “I thought it might not be the kind of thing that we would put in our paper.” Despite his initial reservations, the school newspaper went ahead and published it.

In a statement regarding the cartoon, the district said it remains “committed to helping our students understand and engage in responsible reporting and the important role journalism plays in our community as a whole.”

The district stated that they also “have an obligation to ensure that student publications do not include content likely to cause a substantial disruption to the school environment.”

John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

(Photo credits Alan J. Bartels)

As the United States celebrates the 250^th year of its founding, it can be easy to imagine that the politics of war and peace were less difficult during America’s earlier days. Perhaps that belief is compounded, considering our country’s recent and ongoing military actions in foreign lands.

But to the handful of frontier weary men – American and Native American alike – who were destined to meet in a skirmish 150 years ago in the Nebraska Sandhills, the battle lines etched into the grains of a bare sand blowout were as complicated, dangerous, and deadly as any war before or since.

In April 1876, about three months shy of the United States’ Centennial, US Army soldiers assigned to Fort Hartsuff, near the edge of the Nebraska Sandhills and the present-day village of Elyria, were about to make their own chapter in the annals of American military history.

Post on the North Fork of the Loup River was established after trapper Marion Littlefield was killed by Sioux braves north of Burwell, Nebraska, near Pebble Creek, in January 1874.

Months later, the post was later renamed Fort Hartsuff, in honor of Major General George L. Hartsuff, who served with distinction during the American Civil War, and in the mid-1850s, fighting the Seminole Tribe in Florida. The buildings at Fort Hartsuff were constructed using a cement/grout mixture that incorporated local sand.

Fort Hartsuff’s soldiers were only ever involved in one battle.

Accounts vary as to what ignited what is known today as the Battle of the Blowout. An authoritative description by historian Colleen Switzer in, The Settlement of Loup and Blaine Counties, reveals that all it took was for a band of Sioux to be seen near Jones Canyon (northeast of present day Burwell) to elevate tensions among the local settlers.

Other trite accounts claim that the Indians had been attempting to steal from the area’s white residents. With their lands taken through force, broken promises, and flimsy treaties; their buffalo all but exterminated, and their culture teetering on the edge of extinction – if they were attempting to steal – it was likely a matter of personal survival. It’s not a stretch for this writer to imagine that similar straights could push just about anyone to similar actions.

A group of settlers and trappers began the chase.

Most historical accounts also note that three prospectors en route to the Black Hills detoured from their dreams of striking it rich and made it their business to help take up the trail of the fleeing Indians over hills of foreboding sand.

Fearing for their lives and outnumbered, those Sioux braves took up defensive positions in a large blowout – a wind-sculpted depression in the coarse sand that was nearly void of vegetation. While the Sioux were pinned down, one of the white men was sent to Fort Hartsuff for reinforcements, a straight-line distance of approximately 20 miles over dunes, through meadows, and across Dry Creek.

After the detachment arrived, its commander, Lieutenant Charles Heyl, wasted little time in leading his men toward the blowout.

Sergeant William Dougherty crested a hill and was shot and killed. One of the Indians also lost his life in the exchange, and like Dougherty, left his lifeblood in the sand. The soldiers retreated and guards were posted as the sun arched toward the western horizon. In the inky black of the Sandhills night, the surviving Indians escaped.

Dougherty was buried at Fort Hartsuff Cemetery. The US Army closed Fort Hartsuff in 1881, and Dougherty’s remains were re-interred at Fort McPherson National Cemetery near present day Maxwell, Nebraska, not far from the southern edge of the Sandhills region.

More of a skirmish than a full-fledged battle, what has become known as the Battle of the Blowout warrants barely a footnote when compared to the widespread death and devastation that occurred in the era known as the Plains Indian Wars.

Today, tourists visit Fort Hartsuff State Historical Park to explore the grounds and nine original buildings and observe reenactors during living history events.

As part of my research on the Battle of the Blowout, I tracked down a local historian who had attempted to locate the original battle site. He gave me a general description of where he thought the battle took place, based on stories heard decades earlier, but the man declined to show me the location.

Not to keep the location secret. No, he declined because of mobility issues due to old age. “If you need a picture of the blowout, just take a picture of any old Sandhills blowout,” he told me. “That’ll do.”

That wouldn’t do for me.

I asked for more details, but the man was done talking.

The description he had given me was vague, perhaps intentionally, but he indicated that the site was north of where Dry Creek enters Calamus Reservoir, and east of the road.

I’d been in that area before, so I texted my friend Sarah Sortum, who lives in the area, and asked if she could get me access to that property. She did some checking but came up empty as far as gaining permission to that place. But imagine her surprise when she uncovered a map hand-drawn by her grandmother – historian Colleen Switzer – decades earlier.

In Switzer’s careful handwriting, the map was clearly marked with a circled letter X and the words, “Battle of the Blowout.” Even more surprising was that due to a land acquisition after completion of Calamus Reservoir, the historic spot shown on the map was now on her family’s land.

A couple weeks later, Sortum was waiting for me at a predetermined location near Dry Creek Road. I loaded my camera equipment onto her side-by-side, and we embarked on an afternoon adventure far off of the road.

Wildflowers were in bloom everywhere within a blanket of lush green, and Sandhills meadows were flush with standing, life-giving water. A chorus of western meadowlarks, sandpipers, and other songsters called out from the grass and from atop fenceposts. Cows chewed their cud. Off in the distance, a mama cow bawled for her calf.

After navigating valley after valley, and sandy ridge after sandy, grass-covered ridge – while checking Grandma’s map every quarter mile or so, a huge sandy chasm opened up like God had yanked a handful of prairie from the earth. I’d seen larger blowouts, but not one with such large size and extreme geography.

Having some military experience myself, I could immediately see how the Native Americans involved in the Battle of the Blowout could have used the sharp upsweep of the blowout’s eastern rim as a defensive position.

Of course the land has changed in the 150 years since the battle occurred. But judging it with Army eyes, I didn’t see a safe vantage point from which the soldiers could aim toward their targets without exposing themselves to enemy fire. I wondered where Dougherty was standing when he was hit; and tried to imagine from which part of this sandy grand canyon did the fleeing Lakota men make their escape and head out across the Sandhills.

Had we discovered the blowout where a relatively small military engagement during Nebraska’s first decade of statehood left a large sandy footprint in the history and culture of this part of the Nebraska Sandhills?

We didn’t find any bullets, bits of clothing, or other signs of mankind in that sandy bowl near the Loup County and Garfield County line. If anything was ever left there, time and wind-driven shifting sands obscured it from prying eyes long ago.

No matter. The people who make their living on this land keep its history alive. And on a Loup County cattle ranch within walking distance of Dry Creek, one important part of our nation’s 250-year history lies within the very grains of the Nebraska Sandhills.

Alan J. Bartels is a US Army veteran who served with the 2^nd Armored Division during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. He is also the former editor of Nebraska Life magazine where he still writes a column for each issue. His latest book, Secret Nebraska Sandhills: A Guide to the Weird, Wonderful, and Obscure, was released in March 2026.

Editor’s Note: The author uses “Indian,” “Indians,” and “Sioux” to reflect common usage at the time of this historic incident.

A commemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the 1876 Battle of the Blowout is scheduled for May 16th and 17th, 2026, at Fort Hartsuff State Historical Park. 82034 Fort Ave, Burwell, Nebraska.

Warhorse Casino is working in concert with at least three major gambling-app companies to sell Nebraskans on two separate but complementary ballot drives to put sportsbook gambling in the palm of the hand, framing the question as one of financing property tax relief and curbing illegal gambling efforts, which they say, deny state tax collectors their cut.

In a phone call with The Plains Sentinel, Warhorse director of government affairs Lynne McNally said her organization was a “strong supporter” of efforts by Tax Relief Nebraska, a Ballot Question Committee registered with the state to promote twin ballot-question petition drives to permit sportsbook wagering via internet app if done in partnership with a brick-and-mortar casino in the state.

The first ballot initiative would amend the state constitution to permit state laws allowing online sports wagering, while the second would enact the enabling statute to allow online sports wagers “through an authorized gaming operator or its contracted platform provider,” according to state campaign finance records.

McNally said that while “[o]ur partners are contributing financially to the effort,” Warhorse is taking a role as “ambassadors” for the effort. McNally confirmed that Warhorse already has a partnership lined up for online sportsbook gambling should the ballot question campaigns succeed.

Proponents Promise Tax Relief

According to state campaign finance records, the parent companies for Fanatics Sportsbook and Draft Kings have contributed $75,000 and $1,162,500, respectively, to Tax Relief Nebraska’s coffers, while FanDuel’s parent company has pledged to chip in $1,162,500.

The Plains Sentinel sent requests for comment to Fanatics, Draft Kings, and Fan Duel for comment, but none were returned by the time of publication. A similar request to BetMGM also went unreturned by the time of publication.

Tax Relief Nebraska reported $1,218,361.19 in expenditures in its February filing for expenses to a variety of polling and strategy groups for consulting work, including Riverfront Strategy Group, an Omaha consulting firm.

Jordan McGrain, a managing director at Riverfront Strategy Group who is also listed in Tax Relief Nebraska’s February 2026 statement of organization as one of three “controlling individuals,” spoke with The Plains Sentinel and defended the effort as a fundamentally democratic expression of Nebraska voters’ will.

“We are implementing this process through a ballot initiative, which is the most democratic way to accomplish anything in Nebraska. These petitions will be signed by Nebraskans and will ultimately be voted on by Nebraskans at the ballot box, and then, you know, when it passes, it will be regulated by Nebraskans,” McGrain said, adding that the legislative route for policy change has proven frustrating, especially when “filibuster requirements are minimal.”

“I am confident that there’s a desire to regulate it, make it legal, safe and secure, and then to receive the tax revenue benefits of that,” McGrain said, adding that “a portion of that does go to gambling addiction services.”

“But, a huge component of this is the money that will be generated from the property tax credit cash fund, and property taxes continue to be a significant issue around the state. It’s something that every voter talks about. The legislature is facing a budget deficit and have been working around the clock to try to address that, when you have a deficit that leaves very little room for property tax relief, and so, you know…. We have to figure out how we’re going to generate new revenue for property tax relief, and I think an extension of sports wagering, via mobile or online, is something that Nebraskans have already voted for and approved of, in-person, seems like a logical next step.”

Critics Call It ‘Predatory’

But gambling industry critics like Nate Grasz of the Nebraska Family Alliance believe it’s the house that always wins when taxpayers go all in on pitches for expanding legal gambling outlets.

“The gambling industry is trying to buy and lie its way into our state constitution. This is corporate predatory gambling disguised as tax relief,” Grasz told The Plains Sentinel via email. “It shouldn’t be called ‘Tax Relief Nebraska’—it’s really ‘Revenue Extraction Nebraska.’

“The legalization of online sports betting dramatically increases acceptance, availability, and advertising, leading to greater participation and losses, which means bigger profits for the privileged few who run the games,” Grasz added.

“The group behind these initiatives can’t talk about how online sports betting would improve our state, because it doesn’t. They can only talk about revenue, but never where it’s going to come from, who it’s going to hurt, or who walks away with the biggest piece of the pie,” Grasz said, adding that it’s taxpayers, not sports betting companies that will end up “pay[ing] for the harm they cause families or for the money they take out of a state’s economy.

“The house always wins, and for the house to win, it’s the people of Nebraska who have to lose,” Grasz said.

“Every year they come back for something else,” lamented Pat Loontjer, president of Gambling with the Good Life, a grassroots organization formed 31 years ago to oppose expanded gaming in Nebraska.

“We know what we’re up against, we beat them for 25 years, but the minute they got permission for the casinos, then we knew this was gonna happen,” Loontjer told The Plains Sentinel, referring to the 2020 ballot question and subsequent enabling legislation that legalized gambling at the state’s licensed racetracks. “It’s just one thing after another; they’re never satisfied.”

Loontjer particularly expressed concern for the potential impact on underage and young gamblers should smartphone wagering be allowed. The minimum age to wager at casinos in Nebraska is 21, and the same minimum would apply under any authorization for off-site gambling.

For their part, McNally and McGrain say illegal gambling isn’t a strong argument against a legal framework for expanded sportsbook wagering.

“The people who are concerned about underage betting should want to this pass,” McNally told The Plains Sentinel, noting the ease with which even minors can circumvent geographical limitations with VPNs.

“To the folks that have moral concerns or objections about addiction that comes with gaming, I certainly understand where they’re coming from, but I think that either willfully or otherwise ignores the fact that it already exists in significant, at a significant level, illegally in the state,” McGrain told The Plains Sentinel.

“You can drive to Iowa, you can drive to a surrounding state and place a bet via mobile device there, you can use a VPN to hide it, and there’s a reason why states are looking to, you know, sort of stop the illegal activity and push towards either legal or, you know, further regulation of what are these illegal online mobile markets. And so, through our effort, what we’re hoping to accomplish here, and planning to accomplish, is to give Nebraskans the opportunity to vote to make online and mobile sports wagering safe, legal, and secure, and to generate much-needed revenue for property tax relief.”

Ken Shepherd is a freelance reporter with The Plains Sentinel. He is a former editor at Fox News Digital and the Washington Times.

(Picture credit Matt Johnson)

OMAHA — Earlier this week, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” which would place new restrictions on mail-in voting.

Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, often a critic of President Trump, does not believe the order will withstand judicial scrutiny.

“I think it will be challenged in courts and will likely be halted,” Bacon said. “For the most part, the Constitution gives power to conduct elections to the states. Many like early and mail-in balloting.”

Bacon said that election offices counting ballots after Election Day still pose a problem for public confidence. “I do think that states that are still counting ballots a week after an election is bad and undermines the process,” Bacon said.

Secretary of State Bob Evnen says the order will not affect Nebraska’s primary election next month. Nebraska’s first wave of mail-in ballots for the May 12 primary is set to go out starting Monday, April 6. Evnen noted that Nebraska will monitor implementation for the November general election.

The executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in coordination with the Social Security Administration, to compile lists of verified U.S. citizens of voting age and share them with state election officials.

It also directs the U.S. Postal Service to establish uniform standards for mail-in and absentee ballots, including requiring special “Official Election Mail” envelopes with unique tracking barcodes. Under the order, USPS would transmit ballots only to individuals on state-provided eligible voter lists.

“The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible what’s going on,” Trump said as he signed the order. “I think this will help a lot with elections.” The order comes on the heels of other directives to collect and vet voter registration information from various states.

Reaction against the executive order was swift among Democrats. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson called the order “illegal on its face,” adding that “states run elections, not the president.” Voting rights advocates and Democratic officials nationwide pledged immediate legal challenges, describing it as an unconstitutional federal overreach and a “voter suppression effort.”

— Matt Johnson is a freelance reporter with The Plains Sentinel.

(Picture credit Matt Johnson)

OMAHA — As the Democratic primary for Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District heats up, outside spending has put apparent frontrunner John Cavanaugh in the crosshairs with both Republican and Democratic PACs taking aim at the state senator.

Denise Powell, one of the leading Democratic candidates for the seat, has released an updated memo instructing Super PACs aligned with her campaign to attack Cavanaugh.

“While the mail and digital strategy should not change from below, starting as soon as possible, voters should see on TV (at least 500 GRPS a week of broadcast) that: John Cavanaugh is jeopardizing the Blue Dot we fought so hard for … for his own political ambitions,” an updated memo posted Thursday on Powell’s website said.

“If John Cavanaugh goes to Congress, the Governor gets to fill Cavanaugh’s state senate seat with a MAGA Republican … giving Republicans the supermajority they need to complete Trump’s redistricting power grab and eliminate the blue dot, ban abortion and gut voting rights,” the memo added.

A previous Powell memo had instructed that groups should focus mainly on positive messaging through election day, with negative messaging against Cavanaugh starting six weeks after the publication of the original memo. “Voters should also begin seeing on digital and reading in the mail that John Cavanaugh is jeopardizing the Blue Dot Democrats fought so hard to save in 2024 and is putting his personal political ambitions ahead of stopping Donald Trump,” the memo reads.

Federal candidates are not allowed to coordinate directly with outside PACs, but posting campaign memos in obscure but public sections of a candidate’s website is one of the main ways federal candidates can send signals to friendly groups without running afoul of federal election laws.

Super PAC Following Powell Playbook

Powell’s memo instructions appear to be working as an outside group, Fight for Nebraska PAC, has unloaded hundreds of thousands of dollars in spending to support Powell and attack Cavanaugh by following her playbook.

The new Super PAC has reported more than $450,000 in independent expenditures supporting Democratic candidate Denise Powell and opposing Cavanaugh. The spending — which occurred mostly in March 2026 — funded mailers, television ads, and digital advertising, including thousands of dollars on Facebook and Instagram ads that began running around March 31.

The ad attacks center around claims that Cavanaugh leaving the Unicameral would compromise Democrats ability to stop Governor Jim Pillen’s agenda.

“We’re hanging on by a thread — our representation, our Electoral vote, and abortion rights are all dependent on maintaining the filibuster in the Legislature,” one Facebook ad reads. “If John Cavanaugh is elected to Congress, Governor Pillen will get to choose a MAGA Republican to replace him.”

Cavanaugh has previously responded to the concern from Democrats calling it a “loser mentality.” “I am confident that I’m going to win this house seat, and I’m confident that I’m going to do it in a way as a leader that will help Democrats win more seats at the state level,” Cavanaugh said.

With a crowded and competitive Democratic primary in a district rated Lean Democratic heading into November, this rapid injection of outside money signals an intense battle down the stretch over who will become the party’s nominee in Nebraska’s highest-stakes congressional race.

No donor information for the PAC has been disclosed yet, but the scale and speed of the spending make Fight for Nebraska a major new player in the 2026 cycle.

Democrats Warned Against Infighting

Last month, Democrats warned against candidates going negative in the CD-2 race, saying infighting would only hurt the party.

“Hearing rumors that Denise Powell is recruiting folks to film a negative commercial this weekend against other Democrats,” State Senator Machaela Cavanaugh, John Cavanaugh’s sister, said in a social media post. “That’s so sad — can’t you be positive Denise? We should be fighting Trump — not each other.”

Former Democratic Party chair Vince Powers also posted at the time, “Powell has been running an excellent campaign, she would not jeopardize it by working to help the republican win in Nov by going negative vs a dem.”

Powell never publicly responded to the rumors and did not respond to multiple attempts for comment from The Plains Sentinel.

Brinker Harding, the only Republican candidate for CD-2, said last month that he sees an opportunity in the potential Democratic infighting in the race.

“If I could, I might sit on my couch with a bowl of popcorn and watch them beat each other up and spend all their money,” Harding said Monday at an event in Omaha. “When they start at zero on May 13, with $0 in the bank account, and they’ve beaten each other so hard to get further and further to the left, that puts us in a better position to win.”

Heading into 2026, Powell raised the most cash of any of the Democratic candidates in the race with over $300,000. Cavanaugh raised just over $200,000.

Cavanaugh is seen by most political observers as the frontrunner in the Democratic primary that has six candidates, including himself, Powell, Crystal Rhoades, Kishla Askins, Van Argyrakis and Melanie Williams.

Internal polling from both Cavanaugh and Rhoades show the pair leading the race with Powell in third place.

Trump PAC ‘Backs’ Cavanaugh

This week, Cavanaugh hit back at a conservative-leaning group, the American Action Network, which recently sent a mailer and posted digital ads tying the candidate to Donald Trump. “Call Senator John Cavanaugh today and thank him for standing with President Trump and championing the MAGA Tax Agenda in Nebraska,” the flier read.

The digital ad, running on Google, claimed Cavanaugh was “working to enact Trump’s policy right here in Nebraska.”

(Picture credit John Cavanaugh’s Twitter)

Cavanaugh quickly responded online, saying it was proof he was the Democrat best poised to win in the general election. “Republicans are meddling in the #NE02 primary because they know our campaign will beat Brinker Harding in November if we win on May 12,” he stated on Twitter.

Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb added: “Republicans are terrified and this mailer is hilarious. It will backfire.”

The Plains Sentinel has reached out to the Cavanaugh campaign for comment on the story.

— Matt Johnson is a freelance reporter with The Plains Sentinel.

— John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

“I have an ongoing concern from the incident that I think everyone recalls from the first day of session,” Cavanaugh said Tuesday night during debate on the legislative floor. “There was security footage leaked on the governor’s social media platforms on the same day that the security footage was taken. And I have asked the lieutenant, or the colonel, of the state patrol to tell me how that happened.”

Cavanaugh said she was still waiting to hear back from the state patrol on how the footage got out. “It should be disconcerting to everyone to have security footage in this building so easily leaked on public platforms,” she said. “And we should put stronger guardrails on that to make sure that does not happen.”

The progressive state senator had initially come under fire after Governor Jim Pillen posted a video on Twitter of her tearing down part of the PragerU Founders Museum display.

“As surveillance footage and observer pictures show, Senator Cavanaugh ripped down several of the state’s America 250 displays showcasing prominent figures and events throughout our Nation’s history and then stashed them in her office,” Pillen said in his post with the video footage. “As many Nebraskans and officials in the Capitol have expressed, if a private citizen had engaged in similar conduct, there would be a consequence for such misconduct.”

Law enforcement declined to take action against Cavanaugh, but the Legislature’s Executive Board issued a formal letter in February condemning the state senator for her actions.

“This behavior reflects poorly upon the entire Nebraska Legislature and, with its selfish nature, detracted from the session’s start when the focus should have been on promoting public policy and the needs of Nebraskans,” the Executive Board said in the letter.

The Plains Sentinel has reached out to the Nebraska State Patrol and Governor Jim Pillen’s office for comment on the story.

John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

(Picture credit Connor Essegian’s Instagram)

University of Nebraska basketball player Connor Essegian spoke out in defense of former Chicago Bulls shooting guard Jaden Ivey, who was waived from the team for speaking out against the NBA for celebrating Pride Month.

“This whole Jaden Ivey situation has blown up,” Essegian said in a social media post Wednesday night. “Being a high-major basketball player that is also a believer in Christ, this impacts me directly.”

Essegian said he did not “know exactly what’s happened behind the scenes” so he could not make a judgment call on the Bulls stating they cut Ivey for conduct “detrimental to the team,” but Essegian said Ivey made “bold and firm statements standing true on his faith in Jesus.”

“And that’s hit hard for me because he’s taken so much criticism in doing so,” he added.

@connoressegian

Connor Essegian on Instagram: "My stance on Jaden Ivey’s situat…

On Monday, during a livestream, Ivey called out the NBA for promoting Pride Month.

“The world proclaims LGBTQ, right?” Ivey said. “They proclaim Pride Month and the NBA does, too. They show it to the world. They say, ‘Come join us for Pride Month to celebrate unrighteousness.’ They proclaim it on the billboards. They proclaim it on the streets. Unrighteousness.”

The Bulls waived Ivey later in the day, saying it was over “conduct detrimental to the team.”

Essegian said he is willing to lose “anything” for the sake of his faith. “I know Christianity is true because I have seen what God has done in my life and my heart, and nobody can take that away from me,” he said. “I am willing to lose anything here on earth — basketball, fame, money, whatever it is — standing true to Jesus.”

Essegian, a senior guard, plans to return for another year after applying for a medical redshirt following an injury sustained earlier in the season. The basketball player has been outspoken about his Christian faith, frequently making posts on Instagram and Twitter discussing the topic.

Since his injury, Essegian has helped document the Nebraska men’s basketball team’s historic season by posting behind-the-scenes footage of the team on his social media accounts.

John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

Among the guests were prominent local Democrats, including former state senator Tony Vargas, congressional candidate Crystal Rhoades, Omaha city council member Ron Hug, former congressman John Cavanaugh, and Omaha Mayor John Ewing.

Ewing helped recruit Martinez to run and sharply criticized the current administration under Sheriff Hanson, which he described as an “occupying army” in the city of Omaha.

“We need someone who won’t come into the city of Omaha like an occupying army,” Ewing said. “We want someone who will be a partner with the Omaha Police Department and will work with us as we look to keep this city one of the safest cities in America.”

When asked for clarification, Ewing emphasized “community policing” as a priority for the sheriff’s office.

“They aren’t focusing on community policing like the Omaha Police Department is, and that’s the image that they have with some of the people in the community,” Ewing said. “That’s the biggest fundamental difference between the Omaha Police Department that I started on in 1982 and the organization today.”

Martinez, when asked about Hanson’s office acting as an “occupying army,” pointed to a leaked letter from Omaha Police Chief Todd Schmaderer to Sheriff Hanson in June 2025. In this letter, Schmaderer criticized Hanson’s administration for acting as a “primary enforcement agency within the city.”

“There seems to be an understanding that Sheriff Hanson is overstepping his bounds,” Martinez said. “The Omaha Police Department and its jurisdiction in the county, and the county and its jurisdiction — that’s never been an issue. Well, now it seems to be an issue.”

In a statement to The Plains Sentinel, Hanson said his office was working “diligently to keep Douglas County safe” and was doing so “hand in hand with other law enforcement agencies, including OPD.”

“Our Community Action Team is taking dangerous street racers and reckless drivers off the road, reducing illegal tent encampments, and protecting senior citizens from financial scams,” he said. “I’m proud of the work the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office is doing.”

Martinez said the driving force of his campaign is experience. He cited more than 35 years in law enforcement — beginning as a crime scene investigator with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, rising through the Omaha Police Department from patrol officer to deputy chief (overseeing all four precincts), and serving eight-and-a-half years as a U.S. Marshal appointed by President Obama.

“I don’t think Union Pacific or Mutual of Omaha would hire a person, maybe make one promotion, and then have that person be the CEO,” Martinez said. “That’s a recipe for disaster. And I think, frankly, that’s what we’re seeing now at the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, the lack of experience.”

Martinez was briefly removed from the ballot for lacking an active law enforcement officer certificate required of law enforcement officers. On March 18, 2026, Nebraska Supreme Court Justice William B. Cassel reinstated him, ruling that the plain language of the unambiguous statute does not distinguish between an active and inactive certificate.

As the campaign gets underway, fundraising is now a priority for Martinez, who noted that his opponent “has gobs and gobs of money.” Among his supporters in the room were several family members, including his older sister, Lela Remijio, whom Martinez called “the boss of our family.” Remijio will be planning a fundraiser later this year.

Nebraska is one of 46 states where county sheriffs are elected by the public rather than appointed, unlike city police chiefs. This fall, voters will decide who will serve as Douglas County Sheriff. Both Hanson and Martinez are the nominees of their respective parties and will face each other in the general election on November 3, 2026.

— Matt Johnson is a freelance reporter with The Plains Sentinel.

(Picture credit Matt Johnson)

“The City Attorney’s Office is aware of the Supreme Court ruling overturning a conversion therapy ban in Colorado, at this time the City Attorney’s Office is reviewing what that ruling means for the City of Lincoln’s Ordinance banning conversion therapy,” a spokesperson for the city told The Plains Sentinel.

Multiple attorneys with conservative groups familiar with the Supreme Court ruling told The Plains Sentinel that the ordinance is now “clearly” unconstitutional. Matthew Heffron, senior legal counsel with the Thomas More Society — a national non-profit, public interest law firm that fought the initial passage of the measure, said that the ordinance, for all intents and purposes, was dead.

“It’s now dead in the water,” Heffron said. “To the extent that the Colorado law is unconstitutional, the Lincoln ordinance is unconstitutional as well.”

“When it’s unconstitutional, then there’s nothing they can do with that. If you try and enforce it against someone, then that person would challenge it based on this Chiles case,” he added.

Heffron said both the Colorado and Lincoln measures were “clearly” drafted off the same general template. “There’s very little difference between the two,” he said. “Just a few minor words.”

Heffron said he expects the city will likely repeal the ordinance sooner rather than later.

ACLU Nebraska, which supported the ordinance, said the Supreme Court decision “could” impact the ordinance. “Our legal team hasn’t yet had a chance to digest the full Chiles opinion, so we’re not positioned to make any definitive conclusions on its local impact,” a spokesperson for the organization told The Plains Sentinel. “The decision, of course, could prevent the enforcement of any city or state prohibitions that mirror Colorado’s.”

SCOTUS Overturns Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Chiles v. Salazar in favor of a Christian counselor, Kaley Chiles, who challenged a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ children. Justices ruled that the law violated the First Amendment and entailed viewpoint discrimination.

Under Colorado’s law, “conversion therapy” was defined as “any practice or treatment” that “purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings towards individuals of the same sex.”

Heffron said that both the Colorado law and the Lincoln ordinance both discriminated against particular viewpoints. “These statutes prohibited adults from helping children,” he said, adding that it only allowed counselors and therapists to “talk one way” on LGBTQ issues. “It’s okay to encourage it, but you cannot even help the child if the child wants to move away from same sex attraction or transgender-type behaviors.”

Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s liberal-leaning justices, wrote that the law “suppressed” opposing viewpoints. “Once again, because the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward,” Justice Kagan wrote in her opinion.

Heffron said that the court finds viewpoint discrimination particularly “egregious.” “There’s a long history of First Amendment constitutional opinions that say ‘when you are regulating the content of what can be said that is almost always, presumptively, going to be unconstitutional,’” he said. “And it’s even worse if you are regulating or favoring a particular viewpoint.”

City Touted Ban

The Lincoln City Council and Mayor Leiron Gaylor Baird made Lincoln the first city in Nebraska to impose such a ban with the city ordinance in 2021. The council voted 5-1 in favor of the measure.

While the Colorado law banned “conversion therapy” regardless of age, the Lincoln ordinance only targeted minors. The ordinance was enforced by the Lincoln Commission of Human Rights, which could levy fines against counselors, psychiatrists, and therapists who violated the ordinance.

Following its passage, the mayor praised the ordinance as progress for the city. “I am heartened by the council’s action this evening to protect the safety and health of youth in our community,” Baird said. “Conversion therapy is a discredited practice that can cause lasting harm.”

Lincoln City Council Member James Michael Bowers, who brought the ordinance, touted it as a measure that “saves lives.” Bowers did not return a comment at the time of this story.

John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

(Picture credit City of Lincoln)

Bruce Springsteen led a chant of “ICE out now!” to a crowd in Minnesota. Signs reading “Abolish ICE” and “No kings, no war, no ICE” were commonplace at rallies around the country. One masked agitator spray-painted “KILL YOUR LOCAL ICE AGENT” on a federal building in downtown Los Angeles.

Meanwhile, in Congress, Senate Democrats have attempted to block full funding to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during an ongoing partial government shutdown—now the longest in U.S. history—unless it includes reforms to ICE and related border operations.

Trickle Down to Nebraska

Even within a conservative-leaning state like Nebraska, progressive candidates have engaged in rhetoric critical of ICE operations.

At a town hall in La Vista last fall, U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn condemned ICE agents for wearing masks. “Take your masks off, chicken shit,” Osborn said. “If you have to wear a mask to do your job, you’re probably doing something wrong.”

On a recent episode of the Dan Parsons Show, Denise Powell, a Democratic candidate in Nebraska’s second congressional district, called for scrutiny of ICE funding. “At the end of the day, this is about funding for ICE—ICE needs a complete overhaul,” Powell said. “And there needs to be a conversation in Congress about this.”

John Cavanaugh, another Democrat running for the seat, responded on Instagram to violence in Minnesota following ICE enforcement actions.

“Don’t be fooled by Donald Trump’s moves in Minnesota—he can’t cover up the killings of American citizens that he unleashed by sending ICE to Minneapolis. ICE must be held accountable, and its leadership removed now.”

Cavanaugh has been endorsed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC, which has also endorsed representatives Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others who have called to abolish ICE and, in some cases, introduced legislation to do so.

Ricketts’ Response

At an event in Omaha on Monday, U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts spoke about the current push by Democrats against ICE, likening it to the anti-police protests of 2020.

“This is just another version of ‘Defund the Police,’” Ricketts said. “And we saw the Biden administration’s open-border policy—this is a continuation of that as well. They don’t want to have our borders secure. They don’t want enforcement of our immigration laws. And that’s what we’re seeing from Democrats who are fighting us.”

Ricketts also described what he said border patrol agents called a “night-and-day difference” between the Trump administration and the Biden administration when it comes to border security.

“Under the Biden administration, they were told they were supposed to be like Chick-fil-A—just get those people through. Now they feel like they’re doing their jobs,” Ricketts said. “In our reconciliation bill that we passed last year, we voted for $175 billion to help secure the border, finish the border-wall system, and hire more agents. And what you see is that we have brought illegal border crossings down to a 50-year low.”

Public Opinion Mixed

Polling shows that American opinion is split on immigration enforcement. Some recent polls show concern that ICE may have “gone too far,” with a February PBS News/NPR/Marist Poll finding two-thirds of Americans believe ICE has been too aggressive in enforcing immigration laws.

Americans continue to show broad support for immigration enforcement in general. A February 2026 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 61% of Americans said they support deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally, while an earlier Harvard-Harris poll indicated that around two-thirds of voters support “closing the border with added security and policies that discourage illegal crossings.”

In a conservative-leaning state like Nebraska, it remains to be seen whether a push against ICE will help or hinder progressives hoping to flip Republican seats this fall.

— Matt Johnson is a freelance reporter with The Plains Sentinel.

(Photo courtesy of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

The report noted that across the country, many of the rallies included groups connected to Neville Roy Singham, an American businessman and avowed communist who works closely with the Chinese Communist Party.

Kleeb reacted to the report in a Saturday post on Twitter. “Omg! You found out that we talk to eachother, hold zooms and organize,” Kleeb said. “It’s why you call us organizers...your side is just mad you can’t do anything close to the same.”

In Nebraska, multiple socialist groups pushed members to attend the “No Kings” protest in Omaha. The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) posted a flyer asking members to join the protest. “Join the socialist contingent at the No Kings protest,” the flyer stated.

The PSL is funded, in part, by Singham, and both are currently under investigation by Congress for their role in allegedly facilitating violent protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Los Angeles last year.

The Democratic Socialists of America Omaha chapter also joined the “No Kings” rally, urging members to join the protest on Saturday. “Omaha DSA will be tabling in No Kings 3.0, and we need Chapter Members to help us set up, run, and tear down the table itself,” the chapter said on its website. “No Kings 3.0 will be 12pm-4pm in Gallagher Park, but we need folks here before and after as well to help with logistics.”

Kleeb followed up her initial remark by telling The Plains Sentinel that the Nebraska Democratic Party does not coordinate with socialists groups. “I was specifically responding to Fox stupid article saying lots of groups like Indivisible, ACLU, HRC are coordinating about the rallies as if that's news,” she said. “Our Dem party doesn't coordinate with socialist groups and the ones you highlight in your article I've never even heard of.”

‘No Kings’ Protests Across the State

Nebraska held 18 “No Kings “ protests across Nebraska, with hundreds gathering in Omaha and Lincoln to rally against President Donald Trump and his administration. The rallies were coordinated between national groups, including Indivisible, a George Soros-backed grassroots political organization, and local groups, including the Nebraska Democratic Party.

Both the state and county chapters of the Nebraska Democratic Party encouraged supporters to attend the rallies. Kleeb celebrated the group’s efforts, saying they worked hard to get ready for the events.

“Volunteers, staff and party leaders worked their tails off across the state to get ready for #NoKings,” she said. “We are bringing bags filled with candidate lit, vote by mail applications, stickers, blue dots rally signs and more! We have yard sign pick up events so you can rally and then get [a sign.]”

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated with further comments from the Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb.

John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

During debate on the legislative floor Monday, State Sen. Tanya Storer said the bill was attempting to capitalize on the tragedy of the wildfires to try to push an “unfunded mandate” on Nebraska taxpayers.

“[This is] taking advantage of the crisis in western Nebraska and using that as a motivation and a guilt trip that will ultimately hurt those same firefighters’ budgets,” she said.

“[They are] holding that hostage,” she added. Local firefighting districts would be responsible for funding claims under the bill.

State Sen. Mike Jacobson accused fellow state senators of trading votes and selling out their constituents on the bill. “I don’t know how you can in good conscience go home and look at your constituents in the eye and say ‘I am looking out for you,’” he said. “You can’t.”

“I don’t trade votes. I vote based on what is good for constituents. It should not be about trading votes, it should not be about who can provide me PAC money,” he added.

Jacobson said the bill will result in a loss of firefighting services by forcing rural firefighting groups to shift funding. “Will need to cut needed services… because they will not have the funding to pay for it,” he said. “This is not fair to volunteer firefighters.”

Storer noted that firefighters were already running on “very very thin budgets.” “Many of them are up against their levy limit today,” she said. “People are going to be pretty unhappy.”

State Senator Mike Moser said the way the bill was being pushed “doesn’t sit well with me.” He said some state senators were about to “sell their soul” to support the bill.

“We should not be trading votes,” Moser said. “You vote for this stinky bill that you don’t like, and I’ll vote for your bill.” He said he did not support the bill because it would raise property taxes.

“This is going to raise property taxes, this is going to raise property taxes, this is going to raise property taxes – drill that into your head,” Moser said.

During the debate, Jacobson insinuated that State Sen. Bob Hallstrom was one of the state senators who traded his votes on the bill. Hallstrom clapped back, “I will speak for myself, I certainly don’t need Senator Jacobson to speak for me.”

Wordekemper said he is listening to criticism and wants to continue working with senators on a second round of debate. His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether he was trading votes for support for the bill.

This is a breaking story; check back for updates.

John Gage is the executive editor of The Plains Sentinel.

(Photo courtesy of the Nebraska Legislature)