AZ Briefing: Citrus could find new life in niche operations; Sinema advocates for bill at Arizona Capitol; Phoenix Sky Harbor parking guide
AZ Briefing: Citrus could find new life in niche operations; Sinema advocates for bill at Arizona Capitol; Phoenix Sky Harbor parking guide
Good morning, Arizona. Here's what our reporters are working on and what you should know about what's happening across the state before you start your day.
Citrus remains an iconic stamp of Arizona's history and a symbol of agricultural heritage dating back to when the industry was inscribed as one of the foundational Five C's that built the economy of a young state.
Now, the industry is threatened but could find new life in unexpected places.
Other big stories
➤ Kyrsten Sinema returned Monday to where her political career began: the Arizona House. She touted the benefits of ibogaine to treat military brain injuries.
➤ Does the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act protect members of the military from delinquent rent bills? Find out in this week's real estate law column.
➤ The Trump administration has backed off an order that made it harder for immigrants to receive legal assistance to remain in the U.S. Here's what to know.
➤ Movies: Read media critic Bill Goodykoontz's latest movie and TV reviews, plus media columns and a discussion of the latest news and trends out of Hollywood (and beyond). Subscribe to read every Friday.
➤ Arizona citrus farms are looking to diversify as climate change and international competition threaten one of the state's staple crops. Take a look.
➤ Today, you can expect it to be very warm with a high near 87 degrees. Expect it to be clear at night with a low near 56 degrees. Get the full forecast here.
Sky Harbor Airport parking guide
Sky Harbor Airport parking includes premium, economy and off-site options. Here's what they cost and whether you can park without a reservation.
If you like our work, please consider becoming a subscriber.
Today in history
Here are just some of the events on this date in the past.
On this day in 1957: In Butler v. Michigan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a Michigan law barring sale of books with content that could corrupt 'the morals of youth' was unconstitutional, a violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in the court's opinion, 'The incidence of this enactment is to reduce the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children.'
In Butler v. Michigan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a Michigan law barring sale of books with content that could corrupt 'the morals of youth' was unconstitutional, a violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in the court's opinion, 'The incidence of this enactment is to reduce the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children.' In 1986: Three days after the United States ended its support of the dictator, Ferdinand Marcos fled the Philippines to Hawaii. His successor, President Corazon Aquino, was sworn in.
Three days after the United States ended its support of the dictator, Ferdinand Marcos fled the Philippines to Hawaii. His successor, President Corazon Aquino, was sworn in. In 1991: The Warsaw Pact, an alliance of Eastern Bloc nations led by the Soviet Union and formed in 1955 to counter NATO, was dissolved during a meeting in Hungary.
The Warsaw Pact, an alliance of Eastern Bloc nations led by the Soviet Union and formed in 1955 to counter NATO, was dissolved during a meeting in Hungary. In 1994: Baruch Goldstein, an American-born doctor who had been living and working in the West Bank, shot and killed 29 Palestinians praying in a mosque in Hebron before being beaten to death by the survivors of the attack.
Baruch Goldstein, an American-born doctor who had been living and working in the West Bank, shot and killed 29 Palestinians praying in a mosque in Hebron before being beaten to death by the survivors of the attack. In 2004: ' The Passion of the Christ,' a film about the final hours of Jesus' life, opened in the United States on Ash Wednesday. Even before its release, the film's topic raised concerns it might prompt a rise in antisemitism.
The Passion of the Christ,' a film about the final hours of Jesus' life, opened in the United States on Ash Wednesday. Even before its release, the film's topic raised concerns it might prompt a rise in antisemitism. In 2020: Dr. Nancy Messonnier of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, incident manager for the COVID-19 response, told the nation to prepare for mitigation efforts to fight the spread of the disease, including canceling of gatherings, as well as shutdowns of schools and workplaces. Messonnier said the 'disruption to everyday life may be severe.'
— William Cain, USA TODAY Network
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What CFOs should take away from the Ames v. Ohio decision
This story was originally published on To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily newsletter. In a landmark decision on June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services struck down the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, leveling the playing field for Title VII discrimination claims by now allowing all employees — regardless of their majority or minority status — to face the same evidentiary standard. For CFOs, this ruling signals heightened litigation risks and a need to consult with human resource leaders about hiring practices and potentially politically driven narratives being woven into corporate goals and messaging. In this collaboration, it's not just about a need for robust compliance strategies, but also an opportunity to assess the politicization of leadership and the organization's workforce. As companies face potential increases in lawsuits from majority-group employees who may have fallen victim to race, gender or sexual orientation based-discrimination in the name of a corporate DEI policy, financial leaders may have to reassess budgets for legal reserves, audit the contents of DEI programs in risk mitigation efforts and conduct workforce and pay equity audits to safeguard against costly claims and reputational damage. The case goes as follows: Marlean Ames was hired in 2004 by the Ohio Department of Youth Services as an executive secretary and was later promoted to a program administrator. In 2019, she applied for a management position but was denied in favor of a lesbian woman. Shortly after, she was demoted to her original secretarial role with a pay cut, and a gay man was hired as program administrator. In response, Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation. The issue at hand with Ames, who is a heterosexual white woman, was whether Title VII plaintiffs who are members of majority groups (e.g., heterosexuals and white people) must meet a heightened evidentiary standard, specifically the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas legal framework. After multiple appeals to decisions requiring Ames to show a higher level of evidentiary standard, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Ames and has now unanimously agreed to repeal this extra burden of proof from what previously was determined as a 'majority' status. Legal experts now say this opens the door to new risk for CFOs. 'In the Ames case, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the legal standard for an employee to bring a discrimination lawsuit against their employer is the same, whether or not the employee is a member of a majority group or in the minority,' said Julie Levinson Werner, partner and vice chair of employment at Lowenstein Sandler. 'Previously, many courts around the country held that majority group plaintiffs, such as white men, had to also show 'background circumstances' that the employer was the unusual employer that discriminated against the majority,' Werner continued. 'Now, based upon the Court's decision, there is no longer the concept of a 'reverse discrimination' case, and any employee can sue their employer if they believe they have been subject to discrimination based upon their race, gender, ethnicity, etc.' Jasmine Ahmed, who has held multiple roles in global financial leadership and now provides fractional CFO services, said that, regardless of guidance, finance teams who are unintentionally diverse, in her experience, have always performed better. However, she says the politicization of the issue around DEI has drawn attention away from addressing challenges and into an attack on merit. Having a merit-based professional approach that comes with hard work and grit, she says, are core fundamentals of working and growing careers in corporate finance. 'If you ask any hiring manager, 'If you had complete autonomy, what would you want?' it doesn't matter if it's in finance or not — the answer is always the same,' Ahmed said. 'I've never met anyone who says, 'I want to hire someone underqualified.' What do we hear instead? 'I want the best person for the job' because when the best person does the job, life is easier.' Ahmed said this is a core component of finding talent in finance, and using merit as an indicator of talent shouldn't be a political issue. 'That basic idea isn't political,' she said, 'it's rooted in qualifications, skills, experience and mindset. Those are the components of merit.' Ahmed said finance leaders can take steps to proactively work against ideas of race or sexuality playing a role in growth at their organizations by making sure merit and skill sets are the groundwork for talent evaluation. 'If you look at my track record, go research who's been on my teams, you'll see a pattern,' Ahmed said. 'Not only were they high-performing, they were also diverse. But that wasn't by design. It came from a culture that promotes merit.' She said she rejected traditional hiring tactics she saw in her career as part of this strategy. 'What was different [with my teams] is I didn't allow nepotism,' she said. 'I made talent development a priority for everyone. It wasn't just about performance, it was about developing people and holding managers accountable for doing the same. When you do that, you naturally build a strong, diverse bench.' When asked if she's ever seen a DEI policy in her experience that wasn't about box checking or politics, Ahmed candidly explained that she has not. 'Unfortunately, no,' she said. 'Around the time of COVID and Black Lives Matter, DEI was the hot topic. What did we do? We started filling roles with either African Americans or white women, and at the time, I thought, hold on, DEI isn't about checking a box or meeting quotas.' She went on to explain how the narrative around DEI in the CFO community is now being tackled as a labor issue, a challenge that has been talked about for years. 'I go to conferences and hear the same thing: 'Talent is our big issue.' And I ask, 'What are you doing about it?' We've been talking about the problem for years, but we don't take action.' For those who are building careers around the industry of DEI policies and their incorporation into the workforce, the court's ruling creates a new challenge. However, for Sheryl Daija, CEO of BRIDGE, a DEI and action-oriented, member-driven 501c6 trade group for the global marketing industry, the ruling is a portrayal of 'civil rights protections as preferential treatment.' 'By eliminating the 'background circumstances' standard, the Court has made it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims without addressing the ongoing structural barriers that underrepresented communities continue to face,' said Daija. 'The concurrence by Justices [Clarence] Thomas and [Neil] Gorsuch reveals the deeper motive: a sustained campaign to discredit DEI.' Daija went on to connect the language used by the justices in the concurring opinion to a political narrative against DEI policies. 'Their language [that is] citing briefs that call DEI an 'obsession' that causes 'overt discrimination' against majority groups signals hostility toward the very initiatives designed to correct long-standing inequities,' she said. Ahmed said organizations will likely follow one of two paths. 'One will ignore these issues, avoid the politics and take no real action, and they'll be blindsided,' she said. 'Their risk profile will go up, their teams will underperform, their innovation will stall.' She said the second group will take a more strategic approach and be much better off. 'They'll focus on solving the root problem, building strong, inclusive and high-performing talent for the future. If you solve for that, many of the risks and challenges will work themselves out over time.' Though she said this is seldom done in organizations she's familiar with, decisions like this — legal catalysts that come with a potential risk to the organizational growth projections — are sometimes what's needed to kick things into gear in a new direction. 'Culture is the hardest thing to change,' she said. 'I always tell clients, transformation is simple if you get the mindset right. With the right culture, people behave well even when no one's watching. You don't need as many rules, and everything becomes easier, but culture is also the one thing most executives don't invest in seriously.' Recommended Reading How CFOs can navigate DEI, its pullback and any legal repercussions in 2025
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Federal appeals court hears arguments in Trump's bid to erase hush money conviction
NEW YORK — As President Trump focuses on global trade deals and dispatching troops to aid his immigration crackdown, his lawyers are fighting to erase the hush money criminal conviction that punctuated his reelection campaign last year and made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president found guilty of a crime. On Wednesday, that fight landed in a federal appeals court in Manhattan, where a three-judge panel heard arguments in Trump's long-running bid to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court so he can then seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. It's one way he's trying to get the historic verdict overturned. The judges in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals spent more than an hour grilling Trump's lawyer and the appellate chief for Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court. At turns skeptical and receptive to both sides' arguments on the weighty and seldom-tested legal issues underlying the president's request, the judges said they would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date. But there was at least one thing all parties agreed on: It is a highly unusual case. Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall called the president 'a class of one' and Judge Susan L. Carney, noted that it was 'anomalous' for a defendant to seek to transfer a case to federal court after it has been decided in state court. Carney was nominated to the 2nd Circuit by Democratic President Barack Obama. The other judges who heard arguments, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. and Myrna Pérez were nominated by Obama and Democratic President Joe Biden, respectively. The Republican president is asking the federal appeals court to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If he loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. 'Everything about this cries out for federal court,' Wall argued. Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued that Trump's historic prosecution violated the U.S. Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided last July, about a month after the hush money verdict. The ruling reined in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. 'The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,' Wall argued. 'He doesn't have to introduce this evidence.' Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney's office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. recently ruled that exceptions can be made if 'good cause' is shown. Trump hasn't done that, Wu argued. While 'this defendant is an unusual defendant,' Wu said, there is nothing unusual about a defendant raising subsequent court decisions, such as the Supreme Court's immunity ruling for Trump, when they appeal their convictions. That appeal, he argued, should stay in state court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, about two months after the Supreme Court issued its immunity ruling. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. Wu argued Wednesday that Trump and his lawyers should've acted more immediately after the Supreme Court ruled, and that by waiting they waived their right to seek a transfer. Wall responded that they delayed seeking to move the case to federal court because they were trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan. Merchan ultimately rejected Trump's request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Sisak writes for the Associated Press.
Hamilton Spectator
3 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Federal appeals court hears arguments in Trump's bid to erase hush money conviction
NEW YORK (AP) — As President Donald Trump focuses on global trade deals and dispatching troops to aid his immigration crackdown, his lawyers are fighting to erase the hush money criminal conviction that punctuated his reelection campaign last year and made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president found guilty of a crime. On Wednesday, that fight landed in a federal appeals court in Manhattan, where a three-judge panel heard arguments in Trump's long-running bid to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court so he can seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. It's one way he's trying to get the historic verdict overturned. The judges in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals spent more than an hour grilling Trump's lawyer and the appellate chief for Manhattan district attorney's office — which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court. At turns skeptical and receptive to both sides' arguments on the weighty and seldom-tested legal issues underlying the president's request, the judges said they would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date. But there was at least one thing all parties agreed on: it is a highly unusual case. Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall called the president 'a class of one' and Judge Susan L. Carney, noted that it was 'anomalous' for a defendant to seek to transfer a case to federal court after it has been decided in state court. Carney was nominated to the 2nd Circuit by Democratic President Barack Obama. The other judges who heard arguments, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. and Myrna Pérez were nominated by Obama and Democratic President Joe Biden, respectively. The Republican president is asking the federal appeals court to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If he loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. 'Everything about this cries out for federal court,' Wall argued. Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued that Trump's historic prosecution violated the U.S. Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling , which was decided last July, about a month after the hush money verdict. The ruling reined in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. 'The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,' Wall argued. 'He doesn't have to introduce this evidence.' Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney's office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. recently ruled that exceptions can be made if 'good cause' is shown. Trump hasn't done that, Wu argued. While 'this defendant is an unusual defendant,' Wu said, there is nothing unusual about a defendant raising subsequent court decisions, such as the Supreme Court's immunity ruling for Trump, when they appeal their convictions. That appeal, he argued, should stay in state court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels , whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign . Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, about two months after the Supreme Court issued its immunity ruling. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein , who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. Wu argued Wednesday that Trump and his lawyers should've acted more immediately after the Supreme Court ruled, and that by waiting they waived their right to seek a transfer. Wall responded that they delayed seeking to move the case to federal court because they were trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan. Merchan ultimately rejected Trump's request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
