Why Ahmaud Arbery’s killers are back on trial

Good morning! It's Thursday, February 10th. I'm Duarte Geraldino.

And I'm Shumita Basu. This is "Apple News Today." Each morning, hear about some of the most fascinating stories in the news, and how the world's best journalists are covering them.

The National Archives and Records Administration is asking the Justice Department to investigate the way Donald Trump handled official records while he was in the White House. That's all according to anonymous sources who spoke to "The Washington Post." Some of the records in question could help us better understand this particular period in American history. This new development comes after days of headline after headline about how Trump didn't act in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.

Under that law, presidential records belong to the public, and the president is supposed to preserve all executive documents like notes, emails and other written communication. Instead, as the "Post" has reported before, as president, Trump would tear up everything from memos to letters to briefings, both things that were important and sensitive and things that were mundane. It was so common that in 2018, "POLITICO" reported on the aides whose job it was to collect all these paper scraps and use clear tape to stick documents back together like a jigsaw puzzle.

Earlier this week, we learned that the National Archives recently retrieved 15 boxes of documents that were being held at Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence. These documents had never been turned in, and "The New York Times" is now reporting some may have contained classified information. Other things found in these boxes include a letter from Kim Jong Un, the letter that former President Barack Obama left for Trump when he was sworn in and the map that Trump drew on with a black Sharpie to indicate the path of a hurricane.

Whether the DOJ chooses to investigate or not, Congress may step in here. After all, these records recently got scrutinized when the House committee investigating January 6th received some documents that looked like they'd been torn up and taped back together.

Some Democrats are calling for their own investigation, including Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. She's the chair of the House Oversight Committee. But the "Post" spoke with legal experts who say bringing a criminal case against Trump will be difficult. Not only does the Archives lack a way of enforcing this rule, other presidents have also violated the Presidential Records Act, in both big and small ways.

In a statement this week, Trump said he's respectfully working with the Archives. The head of the Archives put out his own statement. He didn't directly blame Trump for the failure to return the documents, but he stated the importance of the Presidential Records Act, calling it "critical to our democracy." Records, he said, "matter."

In November, Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, and William "Roddie" Bryan were all convicted in state court of several crimes, including felony murder. Courts already ruled the men killed Ahmaud Arbery while he was jogging in Georgia. They all got life sentences. So why now is this trio on trial again, in a federal court, for Arbery's murder? As "Vox" reports, in the first trial, race was not really considered as part of the prosecution's case, and that was intentional.

We're talking about a strategy here that these prosecutors felt would secure a conviction: keep race off the table, make this about the crime and not about the motivation for that crime. That's Jamil Smith. He's a senior correspondent for "Vox."

Right, so that was the strategy in state court. Now, jury selection is underway for the federal hate crimes trial, and race will be at the center of it.

The difference between the Georgia murder trial and the federal hate crimes trial is simply that you must prove racist intent in this crime. You must prove that these people murdered Ahmaud Arbery because he was Black. There was a moment where it looked like this federal trial might not happen. The Justice Department offered two of the men, the McMichaels, a plea deal, which they took. But in a rare move, the deal was rejected by a U.S. District Court after Arbery's family objected to it.

Now, as prosecutors prepare for the hate crimes trial to begin, Smith says they're going to be able to use the McMichaels' defense in state court as part of their federal case. Because, remember, part of the McMichaels' defense rested on an old Georgia law with racist roots.

We're talking about Georgia codes that essentially were established to make sure that escaped enslaved people would be returned to plantations. And now, those codes, generations later, have evolved into the very thing that these men use to defend themselves in court against charges of murdering this young man who was out for a jog.

But proving racism was a motivating factor is a high bar in a federal hate crimes trial. Smith spoke with legal experts who say the burden of proof will be hard to reach, even if the prosecution can prove that the McMichaels exhibited racist behaviors in the past. In this trial, they'll need to prove that it was race that motivated them to kill Arbery.

For the first time ever, young people fighting to protect our planet are going to see their day in court. This week, attorneys representing 16 young people said their clients are going to be able to move forward with a lawsuit against the state of Montana. In court, these youths will argue the state's energy policy and dependence on fossil fuels are infringing on their right to a clean and healthy environment.

As "NBC News" reports, Montana is one of a handful of states where the state constitution explicitly mentions environmental rights. Montana has had active wildfires and state-wide droughts. One of the plaintiffs in this case, a 20-year-old, says those climate-related events caused a lot of road closures, which means her family's business lost half their revenue last year. And she says the smoke from wildfires is affecting her health. She told "NBC" it's real, it's frightening and it's frustrating that we're not doing as much as we should.

And for a little context here, a database from Columbia Law School shows, across the world, climate change lawsuits are becoming more common. But in the U.S., these kinds of suits are rare, and they often they fail to gain any real traction. Earlier this year, The Alaska Supreme Court rejected a similar lawsuit that was also filed by young people. In that case, justices said it shouldn't be up to courts to weigh in. And the same thing happened in Florida last year.

One of the plaintiffs in the Montana case told "NBC News" that they hope this case will put a spotlight on what it means to be a young person fighting to protect their future. If they win in Montana, legal experts say it could set a significant precedent for other claims moving forward. This trial is set to begin in about a year from now.

And just a quick Olympics news round-up before we let you go. Team USA Snowboarder Chloe Kim got the gold. According to "NBC Sports," this is her second straight Olympic halfpipe gold medal, making Kim the first repeat, multi-title winner in women's halfpipe history.

And we're closely following reports of a Russian figure skater testing positive for a banned drug. Kamila Valieva technically earned the gold medal for her team, but the ceremony was postponed and, as of early Thursday morning, the International Olympic Committee hasn't weighed in on what's going to happen next. You can follow this story as it develops, and all Olympics news, in the Apple News app.

And when you're in the app, keep listening to hear narrated articles from our News+ partners.

We'll talk with you again tomorrow.