Birmingham mayor, city council file lawsuit against state over water utility board changes
The Alabama Legislature's 2025 session is over, and the lawsuits have begun.
After state lawmakers passed a bill reducing Birmingham's appointments to the Birmingham Water Works Board (BWWB), Birmingham officials filed a federal lawsuit to try to protect their controlling interest in the utility.
The city government currently appoints six of the nine directors on the board; SB 330, sponsored by Sen. Dan Roberts, R-Mountain Brook, converts BWWB into a regional authority with seven members and a single appointment from the city.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
A hearing on the lawsuit, filed before Gov. Kay Ivey signed the bill on May 7, was scheduled for Thursday but postponed. The law does not explicitly mention BWWB but its provisions reflect the make-up of the water utility. Currently, two directors are appointed by the mayor while the Birmingham City Council appoints four members.
A message was left with Gov. Kay Ivey's office Thursday seeking comment.
Proponents of the legislation said it was necessary to impose changes. In the past, the water utility has been beset with issues with billing, oversight and concerns over public trust. Customers reported concerns with unread meters and inaccurate water bills.
Under Roberts' bill, the governor, lieutenant governor and counties that own a major reservoir would each get an appointment. Birmingham's mayor and the president of the Jefferson County Commission also get an appointment. The governor's appointment must come from one of the counties served by the utility.
Another county located outside the area where the utility is based gets to also appoint a board member. The governing body of the municipality where the regional water utility is located appoints a director. Finally, that law states that a resident where the water utility is located may also be a member of the Board.
The remaining members are selected, respectively, by the Jefferson County Mayors Association, the Shelby County Commission and Blount County Commission.
The lawsuit alleges the bill the equal rights and due process protections in the U.S. and Alabama constitutions. The lawsuit says that lawmakers in the Legislature, most of whom are white, reduced the power of officials in Birmingham whose population is 67% Black and forms 41% of the utility's customer base.
The lawsuit also notes that other areas with representation are mostly white. In Blount County, it says, only about 2% of the residents are Black, and in Walker County, only 6% are Black.
'SB330 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution,' the lawsuit states.
Plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit also stated that the law violates their right to due process because any changes to the board require changes to the Certificate of Incorporation, which is not part of the legislation, that must be approved by Birmingham City Council. The law changes the Certificate of Incorporation by reducing the number of members that the city council may appoint, which members of the Council did not approve.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘He's been explicit': Black leaders say Trump is going after blue cities for a reason
Donald Trump's unprecedented takeover of Washington's police force is testing the limits of his presidential authority and ratcheting up fears that other cities also led by Black elected officials will soon be caught in his crosshairs. Trump, citing flimsy and misleading statistics, declared a 'crime emergency' in the nation's capital, seizing control over local law enforcement from three-term Mayor Muriel Bowser and deploying some 800 National Guard troops to city streets. 'This is Liberation Day in D.C. and we're going to take our capitol back,' Trump proclaimed, echoing World War II-era language associated with emancipation of Italy from facism and the German Nazi occupation. Trump added that his action would 'rescue our nation from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.' The National Guard troops, who will work alongside the Metropolitan Police officers, will be tasked with clearing homeless encampments, protecting landmarks and keeping order in the city. It's an unprecedented presidential power grab that Bowser herself said is unnecessary, but has very little recourse to stop given the "special conditions' outlined in the Home Rule Act. While Trump's supporters have cheered him on, his detractors say the move is nothing more than the president, once again, leaning into racist tropes to cast Black elected officials as incompetent and minority citizens as threats to society. "We don't yet know the full impact this decision will have on D.C. and the Black and minority communities Trump has suggested he may target next," said the Congressional Black Caucus in a statement posted on X, "we do know this: militarized over-policing will inevitably lead to increased fear and mistrust among communities that have too often been treated as occupied populations, rather than as citizens who deserve to be served and protected." During his wide-ranging press conference, Trump also singled out Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Oakland — all of which have Black mayors and large minority populations that overwhelmingly voted against him in his three presidential runs — as crime ridden. 'He has never thought well of Black elected leaders, and he's been explicit about that,' said Maya Wiley, the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She added that she views Trump's actions as a tactic to undermine liberal dissent. 'It's also clear from his previous statements that he has always searched for excuses to assert might over places he does not have political support and that will not just do his bidding,' she added. 'Washington, D.C., has been one of those cities.' Bowser worked to quell tensions between her and Trump stemming from his first term, which included painting over the yellow letters of the city's Black Lives Matter Plaza, which was formed in a response to police brutality during the national protests of 2020. Prior to Trump's inauguration she traveled to Mar-a-Lago to discuss possible areas of collaboration. In late April, with Trump's backing, Bowser helped lure the Washington Commanders NFL franchise from suburban Maryland back to D.C. Days later, she appeared with him at the White House to announce the city would host the NFL Draft in 2027. (Last month, Trump injected himself again by threatening to scuttle the deal to bring the football team back to D.C. if the team didn't return to its original name, which is considered a racial slur against Native Americans.) None of that appears to have deterred Trump from launching his federal takeover. 'I think this is a moment for the mayor to question whether her strategy, which has been appeasement, has been a success,' said Paul Butler, a Georgetown law professor and former federal prosecutor. He described Trump's actions as a 'bogus declaration' but suggested there is likely little reprieve D.C. officials will gain trying to challenge the president's declaration in court. 'While the court reviews whether he appropriately has this power, the Supreme Court and other lower courts [have] generally allowed him to … proceed with what he wants to do, until they get around to deciding the case,' Butler added. 'It opens the doors to further militarization of the police, not just in the District, but in the other cities that he named.' New York City mayor Eric Adams on addressed the possibility of Trump deploying federal assets to his own city following a string of shootings over the weekend that left at least two dead and eight injured. 'When you have those high profile shootings it sends a signal sometimes across the country that we're dealing with a crime issue in New York, and we're not,' Adams said Tuesday. "I'm not part of the group that says we don't want to work with the federal government, but we don't need anyone to come in and take over our law enforcement apparatus. We've got this under control." Trump has ignored the wishes of local officials and deployed federal troops in recent weeks. During the height of federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, which sparked protests that turned violent, Trump federalized some 2,000 California Guard troops against the objections of Mayor Karen Bass, who is Black, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott told The Recast that Trump's actions in D.C. and his singling out of other Black-led jurisdictions, including his own, is nothing more than a "diversion and distraction tactic' to shift the focus from a volatile economic climate and the release of materials associated with Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender. 'It's also the continuation of the president, unfortunately, spouting these racist-based, right-wing propaganda talking points about cities and Black-led cities,' said Scott, who last month said his city is in the midst of a historic reduction in violent crime. 'For the president to say that we're too far gone — it's just obscene, obnoxious and just not based in reality.' Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a combat veteran, chastised Trump for using military personnel for political gain. 'These actions by the president lack both data and a battle plan,' Moore said in a statement. '[The president] is simply using honorable men and women as pawns to distract us from his policies, which continue to drive up unemployment and strip away health care and food assistance from those who need it most.' Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson echoed Moore's sentiments. 'If President Trump wants to help make Chicago safer, he can start by releasing the funds for anti-violence programs that have been critical to our work to drive down crime and violence,' Johnson said. 'Sending in the National Guard would only serve to destabilize our city and undermine our public safety efforts.' The pretext of Trump's actions appears to be a response to an attack on Edward Coristine, who is white and a former staffer at DOGE who goes by the nickname 'Big Balls.' He was allegedly assaulted by approximately 10 juveniles near Dupont Circle this month, according to a police report obtained by POLITICO. It caught the attention of Trump, who posted on his Truth Social platform a photo of a bloodied Coristine and called for D.C. laws to be changed so that teenagers who commit violence can be tried as adults 'and lock them up for a long time, starting at age 14.' Trump is deputizing key administration officials to help oversee the D.C. police, which he can maintain control of for up to 48 hours, but if he sends a special message to certain congressional leaders, he can extend that control for up to 30 days. Attorney General Pam Bondi will be in charge of D.C. police, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will direct the order to call up troops, while the District's U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said on Monday that she is preparing to bolster prosecutions. Bowser, the D.C. mayor, delivered a measured response to the federal takeover in her remarks following Trump's announcements. 'While this action [Monday] is unsettling and unprecedented, I can't say that, given some of the rhetoric of the past, that we're totally surprised,' she said. Maya Kaufman and Shia Kapos contributed to this report. Like this reporting? Subscribe to The Recast. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
4 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A $200 million endowment focused on Black Americans is taking shape
Started in 2020 as a five-year initiative inspired by the racial justice outcry following the police murder of George Floyd, the California Black Freedom Fund plans to expand to a $200 million endowment. The move is both rare in the world of philanthropy and politically bold, given the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate race-based grant making. Originally a designated fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the fund spun off on July 1, renaming itself the Black Freedom Fund, to indicate its new national scope. Over the past five years, it has drawn more than $97 million in donations. Of that, it has directed $45 million to 206 nonprofits in California, largely working to increase the sway of nonprofits that serve Black people, with a portion of the remainder being reserved to start the endowment. Marc Philpart, the fund's executive director, said the endowment will let the fund make grants of $10 million a year without cutting into its asset base, assuming historical rates of return on investments. By establishing a durable institution with a sizable reservoir of cash, the fund can serve as a lasting beacon to smaller organizations serving Black communities in California, Philpart said. 'When a crisis occurs in the Black community, philanthropy parachutes in, there's a wave of support, and then as soon as the news cameras turn away, the support recedes,' he said. 'We need enduring institutions that are led by and committed to the Black community in ways that have a lasting impact.' DEI targeted Philpart's fundraising for the endowment comes as the Trump administration has characterized diversity, equity, and inclusion programs as illegal and has called for investigations of large foundations that support diversity programs. Under Philpart's leadership, the California Black Freedom Fund started the Legal Education, Advocacy, and Defense for Racial Justice Initiative, which provides pro bono legal consulting and training for nonprofits. The program operates on the premise that there isn't anything illegal about racial justice funding. But the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against considering race in college admissions, in a pair of cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, was viewed by some as an indication that private philanthropies could not legally engage in race-based grant making — and the issue is far from settled. While Philpart's fundraising pitch might resonate with some donors, others are sure to be nervous, given the scrutiny placed on race-based grant making by the White House, said Dan Morenoff, executive director of the American Civil Rights Project, a litigation and advocacy nonprofit that has challenged affirmative action programs. The White House has directed the Department of Justice to root out instances of race-based grantmaking, which it considers discriminatory. 'You don't want to be on their radar because they are fervently looking for people to make examples of at this point,' Morenoff said. While some corporations and philanthropies, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, an early supporter of the California Black Freedom Fund, have retreated from supporting racial justice, Philpart is counting on securing support from donors who want to stay with the cause even as the issue is argued in various court cases stemming from Trump's anti-DEI executive orders. The attacks from the administration, Philpart said, have been a 'clarifying moment' for many donors and have generated interest in the fund. 'People have rallied to us and really doubled down on their commitments to support Black freedom and Black power,' he said. 'That is the most telling thing coming out of this moment — that there is a critical mass of leaders throughout the country who care very deeply about the community.' 70 financial supporters One grantmaker that has doubled down is the California Wellness Foundation. The foundation made an initial grant of $500,000 when the fund was first launched, then made a $200,000 commitment to a separate fund created by the California Black Freedom Fund in response to the January Los Angeles fires, and recently added $500,000 to support the spin-off. Richard Tate, president of the California Wellness Fund, said the new fund is 'needed now more than ever' because of attempts by the administration to roll back equity efforts. 'The fact that we are talking about a Black Freedom Fund is an acknowledgment that not everyone has equal standing in the culture,' he said. 'Whatever headwinds that may exist because of this political moment, now is the time for us to continue to be explicit about our intentions of supporting a community.' Philanthropy needs to act quickly by unleashing more money in grants to support areas like litigation, public advocacy, and the replacement of lost federal funds, said Glenn Harris, president of Race Forward, a nonprofit racial justice advocacy group. But, he said, lasting institutions that can respond to future challenges are also needed. 'There's a balancing act,' Harris said. 'It's really clear that struggles for liberation and justice are going to be with us for a minute.' Among the two dozen grant makers that chipped in to start the fund are the Akonadi, Conrad Hilton and San Francisco foundations as well as the Emerson Collective, Crankstart, the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. The total of institutional funders to the effort since 2020 now exceeds 70. Why endowments Among the groups the fund has supported are the East Bay Permanent Real Estate Cooperative, a community-owned cooperative that 'removes land and housing from the speculative market and places it into permanent community stewardship,' according to the fund. A late 2023 survey of nearly 300 foundations conducted by the Center for Effective Philanthropy found that more than two thirds of grantmakers did not offer endowment grants. Half of those that did so made them to arts organizations and museums. Nonprofits led by Black people receive endowment grants even more rarely, according to a 2022 analysis of social change organizations by the Bridgespan Group, a philanthropy consultancy, which found that nonprofits led by Black people had endowments that were only a fourth as big as those led by white people. Since then, some grant makers have stepped forward to support endowments at organizations serving members of Black communities, said Darren Isom, a partner at Bridgespan. For instance, in 2022 the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation made grants of $5 million each to three racial justice organizations led by people of color: UnidosUS, the NAACP, and Faith in Action. 'Endowments are transfer of power from philanthropic organizations to the organizations that are closest to the work,' he said. 'From an impact perspective, the work is more high impact, more beneficial, and more durable if it's owned by and led by those that are the closest to issues and closest to the communities.' Philpart is confident that despite the blow-back against diversity and racial justice, the fund can raise enough money to meet its goal. 'We're drawing people out who want to prove we are greater than divisiveness, we are greater than bigotry, and we are a greater than racism,' he said. 'We are better than all the things that pull us apart and don't fundamentally improve anyone's well-being.'
