Decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing is not a particularly popular idea among Americans, a new NPR/PBS News Hour/Marist poll suggests.

In total, 66 percent of those surveyed think it's a bad idea, compared to just 27 percent who support it. The debate is more split among party lines, with 87 percent of Republicans opposed compared to 47 percent of Democrats. The Democrats are split internally, as well, as 54 percent of self-identified "progressive" Democrats believe decriminalization is a "good idea," while only 34 percent of "moderate" Democrats feel the same.

There is little variation regionally (all regions hover between 66 and 67 percent in the "bad idea" category), racially (68 percent of white voters and 63 percent of non-white voters think it's a bad idea), or economically (those who make more than $50,000 per year oppose decriminalization at a 70 percent clip, while those making less oppose it at 63 percent.)

There are larger gaps between men (75 percent for bad idea) and women (57 percent), as well as among age groups, with 76 percent those between the ages of 39 and 54 opposing decriminalization, compared to 59 percent between the ages of 18 and 38. Similarly, among adults over the age of 73, 60 percent think it's a bad idea.

Essentially, the poll indicates that political persuasion is the most important indicator when it comes to stances on the issue. That's not great news for Democratic presidential candidates like former Housing Secretary Julián Castro who have pushed for decriminalizing crossings, as only the progressive left appears staunchly in favor.

The poll surveyed 1,346 adults in the United States over the phone between July 15 and July 17. The margin of error ranged from 3.5 to 5.4 percentage points across the survey's subsets. See the results on page 13 and page 26 at Marist Poll. Tim O'Donnell

There could one day be a COVID-19 equivalent to a carbon monoxide detector.

General Electric is developing a new sensor which could potentially detect the coronavirus and other viruses in the air, on a surface, or on someone's breath, Fast Company reports. The National Institutes of Health awarded the company a two-year research grant to work on the project, which will build upon two papers published by GE's principal scientist, Radislav Potyrailo, and his team.

The sensor that would detect the virus would be a microchip "smaller than a dime," Fast Company reports. Potyrailo is hopeful about the long-term prospects of the project, but he acknowledged the system is hard to build because it needs to be small enough to keep larger contaminants like pollen out to ensure only the right particles are detected.

If a prototype is available in the next couple of years, GE reportedly envisions the sensors in grocery stores, hotel rooms, and perhaps even within individuals' phones and watches. An actual GE COVID-19 sensor is a long way off, and there are many questions to answer, such as how long one would remain reliable before breaking down. But it's all in the works. Read more about how the sensor could detect viruses like the novel coronavirus at Fast Company. Tim O'Donnell

The Supreme Court has once again ruled against California in a case concerning religious worship during the coronavirus pandemic.

In a 5-4 decision, mostly along ideological lines, the court ruled late Friday night that California cannot enforce its three-household limit on at-home religious meetings, such as prayer groups and Bible studies. Conservatives were in the majority, with only Chief Justice John Roberts splitting off and siding with the three liberal justices.

A panel of the 9th Circuit of Appeals had previously upheld the state's restrictions on at-home gatherings since it was a blanket ban that applied to secular and non-secular gatherings, alike. The Supreme Court's minority argued along similar lines; in a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that California is not required to "treat at-home religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair salons."

But the majority wasn't satisfied with that explanation, suggesting the state was treating secular businesses, like movie theaters and restaurants, more favorably. "The state cannot assume the worst when people go to worship, but assume the best when people go to work," the unsigned majority opinion said. "This is the fifth time the Court has summarily rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of California’s COVID restrictions on religious exercise." Read more at Politico and The Washington Post. Tim O'Donnell

Prince Philip, the late husband of the United Kingdom's Queen Elizabeth II, will be laid to rest next Saturday, Buckingham Palace has announced.

The ceremony, which will take place at St. George's Chapel in Windsor, will reportedly contain many traditional customs associated with the death of a royal family member; however, attendance will be scaled down because of COVID-19 restrictions. The Duke of Edinburgh, who died Friday morning at 99, will not lie in state anywhere accessible to the public so as not to draw oversized crowds, but the funeral will be televised, and eight days of national mourning will precede the event. A Land Rover will carry the duke's coffin from Windsor Castle to St. George's, a nod to his preference for driving himself without a chauffeur, CNN notes.

Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex and Prince Philip's grandson, will travel from the United States to the U.K. for the funeral. His wife Meghan Markle, who is pregnant, will remain at their home on the advice of her doctor. Read more at CNN and BBC. Tim O'Donnell

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Tex.) revealed Saturday that he underwent emergency surgery on his left eye a day earlier after a doctor discovered his retina was detaching. The surgery "went well" he said, but it will require a long and likely arduous recovery. "I will be effectively blind for about a month," he explained, adding that a "few more prayers that my vision will get back to normal ... wouldn't hurt." While he recovers, he'll be mostly "off the grid," he said.

It was a "terrifying prognosis" for Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL who was hit by an IED blast during a mission in Afghanistan's Helmand province in 2012. The injury cost him his right eye and badly damaged his left, his vision only returning after several surgeries, The Dallas Morning News notes. Crenshaw said "it was always a possibility that the effects of the damage to my retina would resurface, and it appears that is exactly what has happened."

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) called Crenshaw a "fighter" who "has the support of every one of his colleagues" in Congress. "He's going to win this battle, too," McCarthy wrote on Twitter. Tim O'Donnell

A previously undisclosed document prepared by the Pentagon for internal use that was obtained by The Associated Press provides a clearer picture of the government's response to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

The timeline shows "the government's failure to comprehend the scale and intensity of a violent uprising by its own citizens," as well as the fact that former President Donald Trump's disengagement meant Pentagon officials, White House aides, former Vice President Mike Pence, and Congressional leaders were left to manage the situation, AP writes. One of the key aspects appears to be an hours-long attempt to coordinate plans between the military, the D.C. National Guard, and the Capitol Police.

The document reveals a minute-long phone call between Pence and then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, in which Pence tells Miller to "clear the Capitol" two hours after the mob initially overwhelmed the Capitol Police and entered the building.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), reportedly grew increasingly frustrated with a slow response after making multiple calls, and at one point reportedly accused "the National Security apparatus of knowing that protesters planned to conduct an assault on the Capitol." Read more about the Pentagon's riot timeline at The Associated Press. Tim O'Donnell

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) led the charge in criticizing President Biden's newly-minted 36-person bipartisan commission that's been tasked with studying Supreme Court expansion and term limits for justices, among other judiciary reforms. "This faux-academic study of a nonexistent problem fits squarely within liberals' years-long campaign to politicize the Court, intimidate its members, and subvert its independence," he said in a statement Friday, a few hours after Biden ordered the formation of the commission, which has not been charged with delivering a specific recommendation at the conclusion of its report.

But McConnell most likely need not fear, write Ian Millhiser in Vox and Jonathan Turley in The Hill. Their reasons differ significantly, but the conclusions are the same — the commission looks like it'll be a dud.

That's not to say the members aren't impressive. Both Millhiser and Turley admit it features an all-star lineup of legal scholars, but the former notes that none of the leading academic proponents of Supreme Court reform were named to the commission. "In choosing the members of this commission, the White House appears to have prioritized bipartisanship and star power within the legal academy over choosing people who have actually spent a meaningful amount of time advocating for Supreme Court reforms," Millhiser writes. Subsequently, he argues, members of the Federalist Society praised the makeup of the commission, signaling that they're not threatened by it.

Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, wasn't sold on the bipartisan angle; he believes the commission is "far from balanced," with only a handful of its members falling under the right-of-center umbrella. In the end, though, "few moderates or conservatives would put much weight in such a stacked commission," Turley writes. "Rather, it could be an effort to defuse the left while sentencing the court packing scheme to death-by-commission — a favorite lethal practice in Washington." Read more at Vox and The Hill. Tim O'Donnell