AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: The Federal Reserve holds off on raising interest rates further, but consumers still feel the pain of past hikes, with mortgage rates at their highest level in over twenty years.

AMNA NAWAZ: Tensions rise between India and Canada after the killing of an outspoken Sikh leader in British Columbia.

GEOFF BENNETT: And despite employment being a key factor in keeping people out of prison, jobs that require state licenses remain out of reach for many people with criminal records.

KIESHA JOHNSON, Portland State University Project Rebound: Although I'm free, I'm still incarcerated, because I still have to deal with no's.

And with jobs, I can forget about even trying to apply for them.

(BREAK) AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening and welcome to the "NewsHour."

The Federal Reserve is leaving interest rates unchanged, a sign of a resilient economy, as policymakers fight inflation.

GEOFF BENNETT: But Fed officials also acknowledged a long road ahead to reaching their 2 percent inflation target, signaling they could raise rates once more this year.

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said the Central Bank will proceed with caution.

JEROME POWELL, Federal Reserve Chairman: What we decided to do is maintain the policy rate and await further data.

We want to see convincing evidence, really, that we have reached the appropriate level, and then -- we have seen progress, and we welcome that, but we need to see more progress before we will willing to reach that conclusion.

GEOFF BENNETT: Stocks tumbled on Wall Street today amid concerns about future rate hikes.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 77 points to close at 34441.

The Nasdaq fell 209 points.

The S&P 500 slipped 42.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland faced a barrage of criticism today from Republicans accusing him of politicizing the Justice Department.

He appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in his first congressional testimony since the indictments of former President Trump and Hunter Biden.

Lisa Desjardins has our story.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Chair now recognizes himself for an opening statement.

LISA DESJARDINS: A long hearing with one thundering charge from conservatives.

REP. JIM JORDAN: Americans believe that today in our country there is unequal application of the law.

LISA DESJARDINS: And one central figure to Respond, Attorney General Merrick Garland.

MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General: I am not the president's lawyer.

I will add, I am not Congress' prosecutor.

The Justice Department works for the American people.

LISA DESJARDINS: House Republicans grilled him for hours on what they call the weaponization of the Justice Department under President Biden.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): There's one investigation protecting President Biden.

There's another one attacking President Trump.

LISA DESJARDINS: GOP members questioned the special counsel's case against fellow party member Trump and skewered the plea deal originally offered to Hunter Biden on tax and gun charges.

REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK (R-CA): A sweetheart deal that was ultimately upended by the court.

LISA DESJARDINS: Garland repeatedly said the decisions were not his, but those of independent special counsel David Weiss.

MERRICK GARLAND: I promised the Senate when I came before it for confirmation that I would leave Mr. Weiss in place and that I would not interfere with his investigation.

LISA DESJARDINS: Democrats were frank in cross-examination.

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX): Does the rhetoric regarding the Biden case have any basis in reality?

MERRICK GARLAND: No, it does not.

LISA DESJARDINS: A veteran of the hearings, never hesitated to stand up for his agency, but showed unusual passion defending himself, speaking about family members killed in the Holocaust, and his grandmother, who survived because she had fled to America.

MERRICK GARLAND: The rule of law is the foundation of our system of government.

Repaying this country for the debt my family owes, for our very lives has been the focus of my entire professional career.

LISA DESJARDINS: Next week, House Republicans turn to Garland's boss, as a different committee begins an impeachment inquiry of President Biden.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Lisa Desjardins.

GEOFF BENNETT: The U.S. Senate is moving to vote on three top military nominations that have been blocked for months by Alabama Republican Tommy Tuberville.

The nominees for chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Army chief of staff, and Marine commandant have been held up while Senator Tuberville protested the Pentagon's abortion policy.

About 300 other nominations remain in limbo.

Ukraine's president accused Russia of -- quote - - "criminal and unprovoked aggression" that that undermines the U.N. Charter.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the U.N. Security Council today in New York and appealed for more international support in the 19-month-long war.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, Ukrainian President (through translator): I'm grateful to all those who have recognized the Russian aggression as the violation of the U.N. Charter.

Ukraine exercises its right to self-defense.

Helping Ukraine with weapons in this exercise by imposing sanctions and exerting comprehensive pressure on the aggressor would mean helping to defend the U.N. Charter.

GEOFF BENNETT: Russia's position as a veto power with a permanent seat on the Security Council has blocked the U.N. from taking action in Ukraine so far.

President Biden met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York.

It was their first meeting since Netanyahu's far right government took power last year.

The president referenced the Israeli leader's efforts to reform its judicial system, which have sparked protests and concerns about authoritarianism.

JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: Today, we're were going to discuss some of the hard issues, and that is upholding democratic values that lie at the heart of our partnership, including checks and balances in our systems.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Israeli Prime Minister: One thing is certain, and one thing will never change, and that is Israel's commitment to democracy.

GEOFF BENNETT: The meeting took place amid a recent spike in violence between Israelis and Palestinians.

Funerals were held today in the West Bank and Gaza Strip after six Palestinians were killed in Israeli military raids.

Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed three of the deceased were their militant fighters.

In Azerbaijan, militant -- military operations came to a halt in the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region after an apparent cease-fire with Armenian forces.

The deal ends two days of bloodshed in the mountainous region within Azerbaijan's borders, but long controlled by Armenian separatists.

Today, both sides acknowledged the fragile truce.

ANAR EIVAZOV, Azerbaijan Defense Ministry Spokesman (Through translator): An agreement was reached on the suspension of local anti-terrorist measures.

The illegal Armenian armed groups lay down their weapons, leave their combat positions and military posts and are completely disarmed.

NIKOL PASHINYAN, Armenian Prime Minister (through translator): Armenia hasn't anyhow participated in the creation of the cease-fire deal and wasn't party to the discussions.

According to the recent information I received from the Nagorno-Karabakh, the intensity of military actions has sharply dropped.

GEOFF BENNETT: There are estimates today that at least 200 people died in the fighting and more than 400 others were wounded.

And Iran's Parliament approved a bill imposing heavier penalties on women who refuse to wear their Islamic headscarf.

It comes days after the anniversary of the death of Mahsa Amini, who died in morality police custody after being detained for violating Iran's dress code.

If approved, women could face up to 10 years in jail.

And still to come on the "NewsHour": California sues oil companies for exacerbating climate change; the latest battleground over the judiciary, conservatives targeting liberal state Supreme Court justices; and how light pollution from cities and satellites is making it increasingly difficult to see the stars.

AMNA NAWAZ: The Federal Reserve may not have hiked interest rates today, but that didn't provide much relief to many struggling with the burden of the higher costs of borrowing.

The Fed series of hikes over more than a year has triggered a big jump in mortgage rates, pushing them to their highest level in more than two decades.

We're going to focus on what this has meant for potential and current homeowners, but, first, perspectives from borrowers and a real estate broker.

BARB THOMPSON, Nebraska: My husband recently retired, and so we're looking at possibly building a home that would be something that we could age into and something that would be adaptive should we need those services in our future.

CHUCK DALLDORF, California: My wife and I relocated from another state back to California to be closer to family.

We are all very lucky to be retired, and the - - just we sold our home and have been looking very aggressively for the last year.

NICHELLE MCDUFFIE HAGINS, KTKG and Associates: The reality is, a lot of buyers have backed off and have slowed down their pursuit of purchasing a home, because not only are the rates higher, but so are the prices.

And demand -- inventory is slow as well.

BARB THOMPSON: The recent increases in interest rates has really thrown a wrench into our plans.

Things that we were hoping to do, for instance, going from a three-bedroom to two-bedroom, it's really changing the size scope because of the cost of building.

CHUCK DALLDORF: My wife and I are both retired on a government pension and we are incredibly lucky, as opposed to a lot of other Americans who are out there and have difficulty with their wages and the high cost of housing.

As interest rates continue to rise, more people, I think, feel like they are locked into their existing situation.

NICHELLE MCDUFFIE HAGINS: Even though inventory is low, there are still houses on the market, whether it's a new homes built, or house in a neighborhood that's available.

Yes, it's a challenge.

Sometimes, you may not move exactly in the neighborhood you wanted, but you may find a place that is even better close to where you were looking.

CHUCK DALLDORF: The marketplace is so confusing right now.

It appears that, because of the higher interest rates, a lot of homeowners who may want to or need to sell their homes are unable to or unwilling to because they had such a low interest rate when they bought.

And, frankly, the marketplace is so hyperactive, in a way, that housing prices have gone up, interest rates have gone up, and it makes it very difficult for people to sell their homes even if they need to.

NICHELLE MCDUFFIE HAGINS: I definitely don't advised that they wait until the rates go down.

You will find that there will be programs that are available to assist others in getting in homes that won't be available if the rates were down.

BARB THOMPSON: I'm in the Midwest area, but it seems like most of the homes that are being built in our area are these very large homes, and they're starting at $400,000 or $500,000.

And I look and say, who could afford to build that?

It's just very difficult when you think of the housing availability.

When you look at my husband and I, and we aren't selling our home because we're afraid of not being able to find something that we can afford, and then you look at young people not being able to find starter homes in a price range that they can afford, it's a very, very tense and tough time for people.

AMNA NAWAZ: Some further insight on all this now from Daryl Fairweather, who watches all of this very closely as the chief economist for the real estate company Redfin.

Daryl, welcome.

Thanks for joining us.

DARYL FAIRWEATHER, Economist, Redfin: Thank you for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, I want to dig into the details of what we heard from those folks in just a moment, but big picture, what is your reaction to the Fed's decision today not to raise rates?

How do you view that from your perch?

DARYL FAIRWEATHER: It seems like interest rates are going to remain elevated for the short term, which is more of the same for the housing market, in terms of not many transactions happening.

We have seen both sellers and buyers pull back in this high interest rate environment, which means, even though there are very few sales, home prices remain elevated because of the lack of inventory.

So it's just a really difficult market.

And I don't see it really improving until rates fall.

AMNA NAWAZ: Let's talk a little bit more from that potential homebuyer perspective then.

We heard from some folks they're having to make very tough choices about whether or not they might buy.

What do you say about the extent to which this is forcing some potential homebuyers and borrowers into really tough choices, right, particularly for lower-income households, people who have less-than-ideal credit?

What are their challenges now?

DARYL FAIRWEATHER: In most parts of the country, it's cheaper to rent than it is to buy right now.

But that's only for the short term, for the next year.

Who knows what's going to happen with rents when they go up?

And then it may be even more difficult to buy later on.

Even if interest rates fall, competition would likely heat up and it would be another difficult housing market.

So, first-time homeowners, especially have a difficult dilemma.

Do they save money in the short term and rent another year?

Do they try to get into the housing market now before it becomes even more difficult to get in?

AMNA NAWAZ: And what about for existing homeowners?

We heard that one gentleman say people feel like they're locked into their situation.

Is that what you have been seeing?

DARYL FAIRWEATHER: Yes, many homeowners were able to lock in record low mortgage rates during the pandemic, which lowered their monthly mortgage payments.

And if they were to move today and buy equally priced home, they could see their mortgage payments double just for getting the exact same kind of home.

So many people don't want to move because they don't want to have that added cost.

The only people we are seeing move right now are those who are downsizing, moving to more affordable areas, or people who have a major life situation happening, like a marriage, a divorce, or a new baby on the way.

AMNA NAWAZ: We know we have long had an affordable housing shortage in this country that's gotten worse in recent years.

What have the last 16 months of rate hikes meant overall for housing supply?

DARYL FAIRWEATHER: Well, the interest rates have had a very direct impact on the housing market, because people need to borrow money typically to buy a home.

Also, people who own homes typically have mortgages.

And if they were to move again, they would have to face another mortgage at an even higher rate.

So it has a very direct impact on people's willingness to both buy and sell homes.

And these high interest rates are what's behind the slowness in the housing market and how few homes are being actually sold right now.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Daryl, mortgage rates are now at their highest level since 2002.

Do you see them coming down anytime soon?

DARYL FAIRWEATHER: I do think mortgage rates will fall whenever inflation falls.

That's definitely been the major story in the economy this year, paying attention to inflation.

Once inflation looks like it is under control, I expect mortgage rates to fall, and I expect them to fall sharply and swiftly.

And that could cause a whole lot of people to rush into the housing market to take advantage of those low rates.

AMNA NAWAZ: And what about when you look ahead?

We know there could be another interest rate hike ahead from the Fed.

What would that mean for the housing market?

DARYL FAIRWEATHER: The Fed is going to be paying attention to inflation.

So they will hike if inflation is persistent, but they will not hike and they could even potentially cut if inflation slows down and the economy slows down with it.

So, I don't think there's anything set in stone.

But the Fed is just going to pay attention to the new economic releases as they come out and make decisions based on that information.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, that is Daryl Fairweather, chief economist for the real estate company Redfin.

Daryl, thank you so much.

Appreciate your time.

DARYL FAIRWEATHER: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: India and Canada are caught up in a tense diplomatic showdown over the assassination of a Sikh separatist leader in British Columbia.

Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a naturalized Canadian citizen originally from the northern Indian state of Punjab, was an advocate for an independent Sikh homeland.

He was killed by masked men outside a Sikh temple in the city of Surrey southeast of Vancouver in June.

He'd been designated a terrorist by Indian authorities.

This week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that Canadian authorities have -- quote -- "credible information" linking the killing to India's government.

Both countries have now expelled top diplomats.

To better understand the context and what this means for India's relations with Canada and the U.S., we turn to journalist and Bloomberg columnist Bobby Ghosh.

Bobby, good to see you.

Thanks for joining us.

BOBBY GHOSH, Bloomberg Opinion: Any time.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, before we dig into the details, just big picture.

For Justin Trudeau to publicly accuse India of having a hand in killing a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil, how big a deal is that?

BOBBY GHOSH: It's a very big deal.

And from all the reporting we are seeing on this from my Bloomberg colleagues and elsewhere, it looks like this was the last resort for the Canadian prime minister.

Since June, since the attack took place, since the murder of this Sikh man took place, the Canadian authorities have been trying to get some traction with their Indian counterparts.

Trudeau himself raised the issue both with the U.S. government and the government of Britain to try and intervene with the Indians.

Then Trudeau went to Delhi for the G20 summit a couple of weeks ago, directly raised this matter with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

When he got no response from any of these or he got pushback from all of these measures, he then decided to go public with the accusation.

And that suggests to me that he had come to the end of his tether.

He had decided that there was no point in trying to do this quietly, in a diplomatic way.

He felt that it was necessary to bring it out in the open.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, what do we need to understand about this Sikh independence and separatist movement?

It's called the Khalistan movement.

We know it's had a violent history in India.

We know Indira Gandhi was assassinated by followers of this movement.

We know it also triggered widespread violence in India at one stage.

But where is that movement today?

And what did this man who was killed, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, what role did he play?

BOBBY GHOSH: Well, I grew up in India in the 1980s, when the Khalistan movement was very much at its zenith.

And it has since then faded quite a lot.

A small proportion of Sikhs in India and around the world want to see a separate, independent Sikh homeland in where the current Indian state of Punjab is.

And in the '80s, this had become a very, very violent uprising, which the government of India then put down over several years.

As you point out, this led to the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

But, in more recent years, that movement has faded away.

It takes place much more in the margins, mostly in the margins of the Sikh diaspora outside of India.

Within the country, the succession of Indian governments, including the Modi government, now have got a lid on the movement.

But in places like Canada, in Britain, where there are large Sikh populations, a small proportion of that population still clings on to the idea of an independent state.

And Nijjar was one of those people.

It would appear that he was a leader of a faction that still held on to the idea of a Sikh homeland within India.

AMNA NAWAZ: Bobby, what do you make of the way that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his government responded to these allegations?

BOBBY GHOSH: Well, they have been quite outspoken.

They have described it as absurd.

They have retaliated for Canada, expelled an Indian diplomat whom they said was part of the Indian intelligence service.

India has done the same.

We have seen countries do that.

But India is taking a very firm, we won't step back, kind of position.

So this is now out in the court of public opinion.

Both sides have had their say, and for the rest of the world, and indeed for the populations of both countries, to make up their minds, we're going to need to see some evidence.

And the next step would have to be for Justin Trudeau and his government to show the world what information they have.

AMNA NAWAZ: We have only got about a minute left, but this does put the U.S. in a very awkward position.

You have a closest ally, our neighbor to the north, Canada, on one side and a country they have been trying to court and deepen the relationship with to help counter China and Russia.

Do you see the Biden administration taking a side in this?

BOBBY GHOSH: Well, it's been trying very hard not to take a side on this.

It has done India a tremendous favor by asking and successfully making Trudeau lie low on this until after the G20 summit.

So Modi's big coming-out party was not clouded by this.

So, Biden has already done Modi a big favor by that.

Now it's his turn to show Canada some love and to respond to Trudeau's concerns.

Biden is in a really, really, really awkward position.

But, substantially, this is to his -- this is of his own making.

By embracing Modi, he has essentially embraced the full package, everything that comes with Modi.

And if it turns out that this was something that the Indian government ordered -- it's a big if -- then Biden is going to have to reckon with that.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is journalist and Bloomberg columnist Bobby Ghosh joining us tonight.

Bobby, thank you.

Always good to see you.

BOBBY GHOSH: Any time.

GEOFF BENNETT: Being employed has proven to reduce the chances that people who have recently left prison will reoffend.

But, for many jobs, that require a state license or certificate can be difficult or even impossible to obtain.

Special correspondent Cat Wise reports from Oregon as part of our ongoing series Searching for Justice.

CAT WISE: At the Coffee Creek Correctional Facility south of Portland, about a dozen women are attending the final class of Intro to Native American Studies.

WOMAN: You have been fantastic, your critical thinking skills, your questions.

CAT WISE: The class is part of a bachelor's degree program in liberal studies offered by Portland State University to incarcerated women here.

WOMAN: The trauma of our ancestors run through the generations of our families.

CAT WISE: Kyeesha Alvarez, who is 28, is serving more than five years for assault.

KYEESHA ALVAREZ, Portland State University Higher Education in Prison Program: I wanted to be a nurse and eventually continue studying to be a doctor.

But I don't know what my options are now.

CAT WISE: And why is that?

What sort of hurdles are you anticipating?

KYEESHA ALVAREZ: Well, I a felon now.

CAT WISE: Alvarez knows that, if she completes a bachelor's degree, her criminal record may still affect her ability to get jobs that require background checks or an employment requirement that can be as another big hurdle, an occupational license.

KYEESHA ALVAREZ: It is very frustrating.

And I think a lot of us feel the same way.

And there's only a handful of things that we can do when we get out.

And we want to do more.

I want to do more.

CAT WISE: About a quarter of jobs in the U.S. require some sort of professional license or certification, jobs like teachers, nurses, and electricians.

Some of those licenses, however, are off-limits to those with certain criminal convictions.

More than 40 states have enacted reforms to reduce licensing barriers.

But, here in Oregon, many hurdles remain.

DEB ARTHUR, Portland State University: We say that we give people a certain sentence.

They complete their time.

But, really, that sentence continues.

CAT WISE: Deb Arthur is a professor and the director of the Higher Education in Prison Program at Portland State University.

DEB ARTHUR: Four percent of people who are formerly incarcerated have a college degree, 4 percent.

There's so much talent and there's so many people that are would be great contributors if we provided that support system for that.

CAT WISE: Arthur first introduced classes at Coffee Creek in 2019 and now oversees about 100 students.

Are the students aware that some jobs may be off-limits to them?

DEB ARTHUR: Yes, and there's a lot of concern about that.

There's lots of anger and there's also resignation, because, honestly, these are people who, to a large extent, feel written off by society anyway.

KIESHA JOHNSON, Portland State University Project Rebound: I love science.

Like, I used to be a science tutor inside.

CAT WISE: Kiesha Johnson knows what it's like to feel written off.

KIESHA JOHNSON: Although I'm free, like, I am still incarcerated, because I still have to deal with no's.

And with jobs, I can forget about even trying to apply for them.

CAT WISE: Johnson served nearly 20 years for being present during a robbery-turned-murder.

In 2021, her life sentence was commuted by then-Oregon Governor Kate Brown.

After being released, she went to Texas to be closer to family and got a job as a security guard.

KIESHA JOHNSON: I was completely honest.

I have been incarcerated for this amount of time with these charges.

And he said, come on in.

Can you pass a drug test?

Yes.

And I got the job.

CAT WISE: But eight months later, Johnson says she abruptly lost her position.

A state licensing department said her conviction meant she couldn't work as an unarmed guard.

KIESHA JOHNSON: Most of the jobs that I feel I qualify for does require a license.

And I don't put myself through the pain or the excitement that I'm going to do something that I really want to do.

CAT WISE: Johnson came back to Oregon and enrolled full time at Portland State, continuing the degree she started when she was incarcerated at Coffee Creek.

She's also working for AmeriCorps, helping run Project Rebound, a formal support system for students enrolling in school after prison.

KIESHA JOHNSON: If I didn't have this program, I really don't know where I would be.

I think that's what the problem is, not being able to move forward after you serve your time.

You serve your time, then it should be over.

But it's never over.

CAT WISE: There has been some movement to change rules around licensing in Oregon.

Earlier this year, a bill was introduced that would prevent a licensing entity from denying a license solely because an applicant had a criminal record, unless the crime was specifically related to the occupation.

That bill failed to pass, which means formerly incarcerated Oregonians like Jose Salcedo still face barriers.

Despite being out of prison for almost a decade and turning his life around, the 31-year old's youth record and adult robbery conviction from when he was a teenager are big obstacles for his dream job, a parole officer.

In Oregon, a felony conviction leads to a mandatory deniable of most licenses in the field of public safety.

JOSE SALCEDO, Youth Advocate: I have been denied three different jobs already.

One of them is to work in a youth correctional facility, same facility that I grew up in.

And I have made it past the application and the interview process, and everything was great.

But the minute I filed for that background, I was denied.

CAT WISE: Today, Salcedo is a youth mentor for kids who have been impacted by gun violence and the criminal justice system.

His approach is guided by his own experience.

JOSE SALCEDO: The youth that I work with right now are the youth that I used to be when I was little.

My motto is, be that person I needed when I was younger, because I never had nobody else tell me that I could do better.

CAT WISE: While he enjoys his work, and feels he is making an impact, Salcedo says he's frustrated that his criminal record is preventing him from helping his community as a parole officer.

Do you feel those license requirements are fair?

JOSE SALCEDO: I don't think they're fair at all.

I'm doing as much as I could to give back to the community.

So, at one point, when is the community going to try to open up and give me some mercy?

CAT WISE: In Oregon, there is a process to expunge or clear many felonies after a period ranging from five to seven years and more serious felonies through a court process.

But district attorneys can object, something Jose Salcedo has already experienced.

JOSE SALCEDO: I have been through court for the past year-and-a-half to expunge my juvenile record.

And each time, it's always been the DA that objects and has specific requirements and objections.

And I don't think that battle is over, because I then have to face the adult courts, which is harder.

But some in Oregon have concerns about changing requirements.

How do you respond to safety concerns when people say, oh, these regulations and licensing requirements are in place because we're concerned about safety, public safety?

DEB ARTHUR: I'm a mom.

I have two children.

I'm concerned about safety.

I don't want someone with a sex offense conviction in my kids' classroom.

There are certain limitations that make sense.

But to have a blanket exclusion from all sorts of job opportunities and career opportunities just absolutely doesn't make sense.

CAT WISE: Coffee Creek and other prisons around Oregon do offer job training in fields that are more open to people with criminal records, like production sewing, electrical work, and cosmetology.

But Kiesha Johnson has different career aspirations.

She wants to start her own organization helping current and formerly incarcerated people.

KIESHA JOHNSON: I don't want to answer to anyone else that's going to tell me no.

So I want to be my own boss.

I'm going to get my degree.

I'm going to get my nonprofit, and with determination and perseverance, I'm going to get there.

CAT WISE: Jose Salcedo is also focused on the future.

This fall, he begins an associate's degree in criminal justice, a step in his ultimate goal of becoming a parole officer.

JOSE SALCEDO: Where there's a will, there's a way.

All my life, I have spent years fighting.

I spent years fighting, accomplishing, losing, winning, gaining.

And it's not going to stop.

CAT WISE: With about 4,500 people released from prisons in Oregon last year, and a statewide labor shortage, the need for new employment pathways is as pressing as ever.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Cat Wise in Portland, Oregon.

AMNA NAWAZ: California is suing big oil.

It's the latest lawsuit targeting fossil fuel companies over their role in climate change.

And it comes during Climate Week, one of the largest annual events designed to focus on the problem and in tandem with the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly.

William Brangham has the details on this case.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: California claims the five biggest oil and gas companies, ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, knew that using their products led to climate change, but then spent decades misleading the public.

The lawsuit says extreme weather fueled by climate change has caused billions of dollars in damages in the state, and these companies should pay for some of that damage.

Joining us now is California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Attorney General, thank you so much for being here.

You're arguing that these companies knew all along that burning coal and oil and gas would exacerbate climate change, and there's, as you cite in your suit, plenty of documentary evidence that they knew that.

And you're arguing that they weren't forthcoming about that knowledge.

What are you alleging that their silence actually meant?

ROB BONTA (D), California Attorney General: They were actually very active in pushing forward and advancing the deception.

They knew 50, 60, 70 years ago that their fossil fuels that they were selling created climate change.

They predicted with terrifying certainty where we would be today, with extreme weather events, with dries getting drier and hots getting hotter and wets getting wetter,.

Their internal memos, their industry-commissioned studies, their speeches internally to one another all said this.

And they were very active in their deception.

What do I mean?

They worked with front groups.

They supported and funded front groups with great climate-supportive names like Global Climate Coalition to undermine the climate science that they knew was inaccurate, that they knew the actual truth.

Internally, they acknowledged that they talked about it, and they pushed out into the public science that would dilute that truth, that would undermine it, that would cast doubt, so they could profit to the tune of billions and billions of dollars over many, many years, just profiting $200 billion last year.

So they also knew about clean energy pathways forward.

They knew about carbon sequestration.

They knew about things that could have put our planet on a better pathway.

But they chose to ignore those, to push those down and push and lift up fossil fuels, all for profit.

So they lied to the people of California.

So we're asking them to put billions of dollars into an abatement fund to mitigate future environmental damage and to provide for resiliency and adaptation going forward.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Let's say that they had been more frank about their understanding of climate change.

What would you have wanted those companies back then to have done differently?

ROB BONTA: Be truthful, very simple.

Don't lie, don't deceive, don't hide from the public clean energy pathways forward, and don't hide from the public the existential threat that fossil fuels created in terms of climate change and extreme weather and damage to the environment.

With full knowledge, the people could make choices about their future, our planet's future, our children's and grandchildren's future.

Perhaps choices would have been different, like doubling down and investing on clean energy and phasing out of fossil fuel.

Who knows?

But they should not have lied.

They should have told the truth.

They affirmatively lied to the people of California time and time again with their editorials that they produced.

Their marketing arm, the industry association, the American Petroleum Institute was very involved with this, with the faux science that they put out, all meant to make people believe something different than what the actual truth was, that we were on a pathway towards disaster as a state and, frankly, as a nation and a world.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The American Petroleum Institute put out a statement about your suit, saying in part -- quote -- "This ongoing coordinated campaign to wage meritless politicized lawsuits against a foundational American industry and its workers is nothing more than a distraction.

Climate policy is for Congress to debate and decide, not the court system."

What do you make of that argument, that, in fact, it is incumbent upon senators, governors, presidents to determine policy, energy policy, and that going after a private company is inappropriate?

ROB BONTA: That entire statement by the American Petroleum Institute is entirely in character with the statements that they have made over the last number of decades.

That statement is a distraction.

That statement is not true.

That statement wants you to focus on other things besides the actual truth.

There will be and there is an entirely separate and independent pathway for action in this space that is pointed out by the American Petroleum Institute.

That is something different than what we're doing.

It's for Congress and legislative bodies to make policy about climate change.

And they are.

The Biden administration has been a great leader in this space.

But our lane, a separate lane, is the lane of legal accountability in court.

The state of California is suing big oil in state court for the damage that they have caused.

This is not a policy lawsuit.

This is a straight-up legal cause of action that has remedies in court.

Cases like this have been brought before against the tobacco industry, against the lead paint industry, against the opioid industry, when entire industries hurt people time and time again in great numbers and at great scale and lie about it.

This is not new.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Governor Newsom has said that the damage caused by this deception, as he puts it, by these oil companies, is incalculable.

So, how do you calculate the role that a given oil company might have contributed to a drought, a wildfire, a storm in California?

How do you do that?

ROB BONTA: We think it's in the range of tens of billions to hundreds of billions of dollars in ongoing damage going forward.

That's the sort of big picture estimate.

We will need experts, scientists to look at attribution of different damage to the different defendants and looking at causation to determine the specifics.

And so that will take time.

We will get more evidence and information through the course of the lawsuit and make those determinations throughout the course of the lawsuit down the road.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Attorney General Rob Bonta of the state of California, thank you so much for being here.

ROB BONTA: Thanks for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: As political fights across the country become more contentious, key legal decisions over issues like gerrymandering are finding their way to state supreme courts that's turned once-overlooked questions about who sits on the bench into all-out political battles of their own.

In two states, liberal Supreme Court justices are under fire.

In Wisconsin, Justice Janet Protasiewicz, less than two months into the job, is facing potential impeachment by the Republican-controlled legislature.

And, in North Carolina, Justice Anita Earls, one of just two Democrats on the court, is being investigated by a judicial commission.

To discuss the politics at play in state courts, we're joined by Zac Schultz, who covers politics for PBS Wisconsin, and Colin Campbell, Capitol bureau chief for WUNC.

With a welcome to you both.

Zac, we should explain that, in Wisconsin, Republicans who are fighting to preserve the legislative electoral maps that they drew are arguing that Justice Protasiewicz has to recuse herself from this case.

Where do things stand?

ZAC SCHULTZ, PBS Wisconsin: Well, they're threatening impeachment, which is a process in Wisconsin for elected judges that we really haven't had to deal with in the last century-plus.

So it's completely new territory.

The Assembly speaker, the leader of the Republicans for the legislature, Robin Vos, says he's bringing in some former Supreme Court justices, some conservatives to help give him some legal guidance as to what path may lay forward and whether any of the things that Janet Protasiewicz has said on the campaign trail last spring would rise to the level of warranting an impeachment process.

At the same time, he's also hedging some bets, and he's actually trying to advance a bill that would create a nonpartisan redistricting process here in Wisconsin based on the Iowa model.

But Democrats are rejecting that call for right now, saying that the bill isn't close enough to the Iowa model to count, that there's little clauses.

They don't trust the Republicans, especially since, for the last decade-plus, Republicans have said, we don't need an Iowa model.

We should write the bills ourselves.

GEOFF BENNETT: So how likely is impeachment?

And is there any concern that impeaching the justice would just infuriate Democrats and potentially independents and to have a blowback effect on Republicans in future elections?

ZAC SCHULTZ: The likelihood of impeachment is anybody's guess.

We have already seen one Republican in the Assembly come out and say he would not vote for impeachment.

We have seen of all-out campaigned by Democrats going after other Republicans that they think may be in districts that may be swingable.

So there's absolutely the threat of blowback, especially if impeachment doesn't work and maps end up being rewritten that put some of those Republicans in much less favorable districts next year.

So there is a lot of calculating, like how far can they go?

What should they do in this process?

The real question is, if impeachment actually goes forward, there will be a lawsuit immediately filed saying it's invalid.

And then that would go to the Supreme Court in Wisconsin.

And, in that case, Janet Protasiewicz would probably would recuse herself, because it would directly impact her in potential impeachment.

So we could see all sorts of different tracks along these lines.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, Colin, in North Carolina, the state Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls is suing a judicial oversight board that's investigating her for comments she made about the diversity of the state's judicial system.

Bring us up to speed.

COLIN CAMPBELL, Capitol Bureau Chief, WUNC: Yes, so she made some comments a few months back to a judicial public legal publication raising some issues about the diversity in hiring in the court system, as well as a decision by the chief justice of the Supreme Court to do away with the Commission on Equity.

That has landed her in hot water with a group called the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission that oversees the conduct of judges.

It's led by Republican judges, and they are in the process of investigating her.

She says the investigation infringes on her free speech rights.

So she's taken this to a federal court, filed a lawsuit to block this investigation and disciplinary action from going forward.

But that's currently pending at the federal court level.

The latest we have heard from that is the federal judge assigned to the case has accused both the standards commission and Justice Earls of being -- quote -- "inflammatory" in their accusations in the legal filings so far.

So this is going to end up being a pretty spicy court battle as it goes forward.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, Colin, if she were to be removed, how would that affect the makeup of the court and the potential outcomes of the cases coming before that court?

COLIN CAMPBELL: Well, North Carolina's Supreme Court as of this year has a pretty strong Republican majority.

It's 5 to 2.

It was a Democratic majority last year.

So that's why you're seeing some of this whiplash here in terms of the animosity on the court.

If she were to be removed, which is probably an unlikely scenario here, but certainly within the realm of possibility, she's going to get appointed -- reappointed by -- or replaced by the state's governor, who's currently a Democrat.

And even if the state's governor were a Republican in the future and were to replace her, there's still a Republican majority for the next couple of election cycles before Democrats could take control of this court.

So a lot of it is more about sort of the chilling of speech and the animosity that occurs on the Supreme Court, more so than which party gets to be in control at this point.

GEOFF BENNETT: Is there a precedent for this in North Carolina, Colin?

Or is this the first time something like this has happened where a judge has been targeted, I guess, she would say, for previous comments like this?

COLIN CAMPBELL: Yes, the Judicial Standards Commission, I think, has filed disciplinary action against a variety of judges.

This is the first time that I can recall that it's about comments that someone has made, a critique of the judicial system.

They're arguing that she's violated a code of conduct that prevents judges from being able to say anything that impacts public confidence in the courts, which, of course, is a very vague piece of the judicial code of conduct.

And I don't think it's been used in this way, at least to my knowledge, up until now.

GEOFF BENNETT: Zac, the last Supreme Court election in Wisconsin was the most expensive judicial race in that state's history, $45 million spent.

It was incredibly contentious and partisan, even though it's technically, as I understand it, a nonpartisan election.

Has there been any talk of changing how judges are chosen in that state?

ZAC SCHULTZ: It's a conversation that comes up almost every single Supreme Court election, and it's in the Constitution.

So it would require a constitutional amendment.

And, right now, that process would require two consecutive legislatures passing that, and then a statewide referendum approving it.

It's never even gotten to the point of the legislature introducing it, even when Democrats controlled the legislature more than a decade ago.

That's simply not going to happen.

Most people say, as ugly as it can be, they still like the accessibility of judges to be directly elected by the people.

But, over time, what that's meant is, the parties have gotten more and more involved at every step, and it's more difficult for any of these candidates to keep an arm's length away from the partisan process, despite it technically being nonpartisan.

GEOFF BENNETT: Zac Schultz of PBS Wisconsin and Colin Campbell of WUNC in North Carolina, thanks to you both.

COLIN CAMPBELL: Thanks a lot.

satellites AMNA NAWAZ: Astronomers around the world are calling for international agreements to limit the spread of satellite constellations in space, warning that the light pollution they create damages vital scientific work.

In Britain, the government is also being urged to impose new planning regulations to stop the alarming loss of the nation's dark skies.

Special correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports from Southern England.

MALCOLM BRABANT: After one of the worst British summers in recent memory, a September sunset of this caliber is enough to make anyone salsa like no one is watching.

But in increasingly urbanized Britain, the same can't be said of our night skies.

I'm using red light because I want to protect my night vision and also to minimize light pollution, as I'm about to do some time-lapse videos of the night sky.

It's pretty cloudy tonight, but I can still see the stars, although the clarity is nothing to make a song and dance about.

Images of the twinkling heavens are tainted by the tinge of light pollution from the city of Brighton.

This is a fair representation of the state of the skies above much of the U.K. DAN OAKLEY, Managing Director, Darkscape Consulting: We're seeing roughly a 10 percent loss of our skies over the last 10 years.

We're slowly losing access to our dark skies.

Nature's suffering from it as well.

They're losing their dark skies, and that's a really key, important thing to lose for us.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Dan Oakley is a dark skies consultant working to reduce light pollution.

DAN OAKLEY: A dark sky is something that connects humanity to the wider universe, really, and being able to stand under a dark sky means you can kind of look at yourself in the mirror and try to figure out where you came from, ask those big existential questions of life, the universe and everything.

MEGAN EAVES, Editor, "Nightscape": I grew up in the Southwest part of the U.S. in a place and time when there wasn't as much light pollution.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Megan Eaves swapped the darkness of New Mexico for London's bright lights 13 years ago.

She's the editor of "Nightscape," a quarterly magazine committed to reclaiming starry, starry nights.

MEGAN EAVES: It's just such a fundamental part of who I am and also a part of who humans are.

All of our art and our music and films throughout history have been inspired by the night sky.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Dark sky activists insist there are compelling health reasons to fight light pollution.

MEGAN EAVES: Light at night disrupts our circadian rhythm, which is what produces the hormone melatonin, which impacts our sleep cycle.

It can result in all sorts of mental health issues, and it can lead to all sorts of different illnesses.

WOMAN: And great news.

All systems are go for launch, so let's watch as Falcon 9 takes our 22 Starlink satellites into space.

MALCOLM BRABANT: The final frontier of light pollution.

ROBERT MASSEY, Deputy Director, The Royal Astronomical Society: There's great concern in the global astronomical community about the impact of satellites in low Earth orbit and what that means for our science.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Leading astronomer Robert Massey and his peers want governments to pay attention.

ROBERT MASSEY: We're effectively in a paradigm shift.

We have gone from having a couple of thousand of these in low Earth orbit a few years ago.

What we now have is a number which is 6,000 or 7,000 and rising rapidly.

MALCOLM BRABANT: And most of those are Starlink satellites owned by Elon Musk.

The Ukrainians are reliant on them as they try to drive Russian forces out of their territory.

ROBERT MASSEY: It's not inconceivable that we could see hundreds of thousands of satellites in that region of space above the Earth.

WOMAN: Starlink satellites operate in low Earth orbit, which enables the delivery of high-speed low-latency Internet to people living in remote and rural locations around the globe.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Satellites reflect sunlight.

This video shows a train of satellites shortly after their release into orbit.

ROBERT MASSEY: We rely on pointing very sensitive telescopes at the sky, looking for faint objects.

And what happens with satellites crossing the field is that you get a whole series of streaks.

An awful lot of data is lost, and that science is compromised.

MALCOLM BRABANT: But satellite companies are trying to minimize light pollution from space, as Dr. Bruce Cameron from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology explains.

DR. BRUCE CAMERON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: So they have tried applying new coatings on the outside which either absorb light or reflect light back into space.

They have tried sunshades, meaning shading the satellite from some of that inbound sunlight that is then reflected back to Earth as light pollution.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Space has become the new Wild West.

China is talking of launching a constellation of 13,000 satellites with the potential to expand even further.

As light pollution expands across Europe, dark spaces are ever harder to find.

This is Beddgelert in North Wales.

The music of the river and perfect starlight helped convince Emma Sloan and her husband to buy this hotel in a valley where, even on a cloudy night, shooting stars magically appear.

EMMA SLOAN, Hotel Owner: It makes you so aware that there's something bigger out there, but so much larger than us.

It also connects you, I guess, with whatever energy the sky is.

And it also gives me a sense of, this is how the world should be.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Elsewhere in Britain, people head to dark sky reserves in national parks, like this one near the South Coast.

Sunsets can be spectacular, as can the night.

This is the Milky Way above a feature called Devil's Dike.

If you look carefully you can just see the galaxy above the windmill in a time-lapse filmed just 10 miles away, demonstrating that the purity of darkness is at risk from encroaching development, as Britain builds new towns to house its growing population.

DAN OAKLEY: It's made worse by bad lighting choices and bad installations.

So what we can do, as communities and national parks and government, is to make sure that we have good guidances to help people put up the right kind of lighting at the right place at the right time.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Like this example, where the light is directed downwards, where it's needed, not upwards, where it's not.

MEGAN EAVES: The thing that gives me the most hope is that light pollution is actually the easiest form of pollution to solve.

We already know how to solve it.

We simply light better, light smarter, light more efficiently, waste less, and turn off lights that we don't need.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Once in a rare super blue moon, the power of the solar system cuts through the haze.

This phenomenon took place nearly a month ago and won't appear for another 14 years.

What will light pollution be like then?

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Malcolm Brabant on Britain's South Coast.

GEOFF BENNETT: And there is much more online, including a look at how Afghans are building community in the heart of the Midwest two years after the Taliban takeover of their home country.

AMNA NAWAZ: And join us again here tomorrow night, when we will have full coverage of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's visit to Washington, D.C. And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

Thanks for joining us, and have a good evening.