Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Paragraph: The Supreme Judicial Court said MIT cannot be blamed for the death of 25-year-old Han Nguyen, who jumped from the top of a campus building minutes after a professor confronted him about an offensive email. But it found that schools can be liable if they fail to act after they become aware that a student has attempted suicide while enrolled, or shortly before entering, or learn that the student had threatened to commit suicide. Gary Pavela, a consultant on law and policy issues in higher education, said he's unaware of another state appellate court that has explicitly found that universities have a duty to prevent suicide in limited cases and defines those circumstances. "This will be very newsworthy to colleges around the country," said Pavela, who has written a book about the legal questions surrounding student suicides. Jeffrey Beeler, an attorney for Nguyen's estate, said they were disappointed the court sided with MIT, but believe its ruling will nonetheless "save student lives going forward." An MIT spokeswoman said in a statement that Nguyen's death was a tragedy and students' well-being is of "paramount importance to the school." Spokeswoman Kimberly Allen said the school already offers a "robust network" of services for students and "continually considers ways to enhance those resources." The court noted that Nguyen never told anyone at MIT that he planned to kill himself or tried to kill himself while enrolled at the school. Furthermore, he was living off campus instead of a dormitory under "daily observation," the court said. But the judges said schools must take "reasonable measures" to help students they know have attempted suicide while at the school or have threatened to kill themselves. That would include initiating a suicide prevention protocol, getting the student in the care of a medical professional, or contacting police, fire or emergency medical personnel. "It requires the school to really have a lot of information that the suicide is likely and the reasonable measures that the school needs to take are not extremely onerous," said Naomi Shatz, an attorney who's not involved in the case. A group of 18 colleges and universities including Harvard University and Boston College told the court that holding MIT responsible for Nguyen's death would have far-reaching consequences by causing officials with no medical expertise to overreact to concerns out of fear of liability. Nguyen's professors shared concerns about his mental health in the months leading up to his death, and one encouraged his colleagues to pass him or they might have "blood on their hands." In a telephone call 11 minutes before he killed himself, a professor "read him the riot act" over an email Nguyen sent to another MIT official that they believed was inappropriate, court records said. The family said that the school should have known that "mishandling this fragile student" would result in his suicide. But MIT said the school wasn't aware of the severity of his condition, noting that he was treated by outside professionals and refused on-campus resources. None of the professionals who treated Nguyen while he was at MIT believed he was an imminent risk of killing himself, the school said. ___ Follow Alanna Durkin Richer at http://twitter.com/aedurkinricher . Read more of her work at http://bit.ly/2hIhzDb . Claim: Court says schools can be liable for suicides but clears MIT.
Schools can be held liable for student suicides in certain circumstances, Massachusetts' highest court said Monday in a ruling that also cleared the Massachusetts Institute of Technology of responsibility for the death of a graduate student who killed himself on campus in 2009.

Paragraph: This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called "double jeopardy clause" of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and NeilM. Gorsuch dissented. On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gamble's lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitution's ban on "double jeopardy," which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitution's double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or "separate sovereigns") which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) This "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gamble's filing. The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been "long held", and "consistently endorsed" by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of "[p]recedent, experience, and reason alike," The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as "not a new question," having been "invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" Each sovereign is entitled to "exercis[e] its own sovereignty" to "determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity" and prosecute the offender "without interference by the other." Under petitioner's interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereign's efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereign's similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitution's bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: "Whether the Court should overrule the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause." The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. "Under the dual sovereignty doctrine," Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, "as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the 'same offense.'" The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the President's pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedy's retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the president's legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this case's having importance with regard to President Trump's pardon power: Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trump's power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldn't be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed then Trump's pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, "the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally but with some existing limits can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon," explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that "the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states' core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context." Claim: Judge Kavanaugh, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, could be a deciding vote on a case that has the potential to dramatically increase the power of the presidential pardon.
Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case.

Paragraph: In the interview, Bolsonaro also stuck to the government's assertion that a Greek freighter caused the oil spill scattered across beaches along 1,300 miles (2,100 kilometers) of coastline even after the shipowner's denial of any leakage from its vessel. "All signs point to this Greek cargo ship. All of them," he told Record TV, adding that the leak, "by all accounts looks like it was criminal." Brazil's government has been striving to investigate the cause of the spill that has hit 321 beaches along the northeast coast since early September, hurting fishing and tourism. Authorities have described the spill as one of the country's worst environmental disasters. The crude's density renders it invisible from above, making it hard to track its origin or to have a clear picture of the amount of oil yet to reach Brazil's coast. Some 4,000 tons of oil has been collected from northeastern beaches thus far, according to a statement Sunday from the Navy, Brazil's environmental regulator, and the national petroleum agency. "To say how much oil there still is very difficult to say," Commander Leonardo Puntel of the Brazilian Navy said at a press conference on Monday. "Since the oil is underwater, we don't know if there's still a lot or a little. There is effectively no correct and accurate way to monitor these oil spots," he said, adding that they have seen a decrease in oil arriving onto beaches in recent days. He called the disaster "unprecedented." "There is no case in the world of a large-scale oil spill where the origins are totally unknown. This case has no parallel, we don't know who polluter is," Puntel said. Brazil's defense minister, Gen. Fernando Azevedo e Silva, also stressed how challenging it is to calculate the spill's scope. "It is not detectable by satellite. ... It is imperceptible. We do not know how much will still come," he said. David Zee, an oceanographer at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said that the 4,000 tons of collected oil is "just the tip of the iceberg," both because the cleanup effort is mostly limited to sandy beaches in populated areas and also because a large portion of spilled oil is likely spread deep beneath the ocean's surface. Furthermore, when currents bring oil to sandy shores, it is relatively easy to collect, while is nearly impossible to remove from corals and mangrove forests, which make up part of the affected area, Zee said. Brazilian prosecutors have named Greek shipping company Delta Tankers Ltd as a suspect of the leak's origins. The company issued a statement earlier saying it found no evidence of leakage after reviewing the ship's cameras and sensors. "This material will be willingly shared with Brazilian authorities, should they contact the company regarding this investigation. So far, no such contact has been made," the statement said. Federal Police officer Franco Perazzoni said at Monday's press conference that the company will be officially notified via Interpol. Brazilian prosecutors said previously that Delta's oil tanker, named Bouboulina, was navigating through Brazilian waters at the time and location of the spill. The ship was carrying oil from Venezuela to Malaysia. In a search order seen Friday by The Associated Press, Brazilian prosecutors said "there is no indication of another boat" that could have discharged the Venezuelan crude into the sea. Brazilian armed forces along with environmental protection agencies and petroleum authorities are leading an operation to clean, monitor and investigate the oil spill. Several public universities are conducting research about the spill's origins and impact. Television footage has also shown volunteers flocking to beaches to help with the cleanup, often without government supervision. Of particular concern at the moment is the Abrolhos national marine park, home to Brazil's largest coral reefs. Authorities said Sunday night that they had removed the fragments of oil that had appeared in the park and so far no new traces had been found. "A very small amount of oil arrived on November 2, on November 3 only a few fragments remained, today there's none," Puntel said in the Monday press conference. "Will more oil fragments come? Maybe." Claim: Brazil reckons with new oil spill mystery: When will it end?.
Brazilian authorities said on Monday that they have no way of knowing how much more oil will wash ashore the country's northeastern coast, despite President Jair Bolsonaro's ominous warning during a Sunday night TV interview that "the worst is yet to come."