US Naval Academy ends affirmative action in admissions
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — The U.S. Naval Academy will no longer consider race, ethnicity or sex as a factor for admission to the service institution, a response to an executive order by President Donald Trump, according to federal court documents made public Friday.
The change in policy was made in February by Vice Adm. Yvette Davids, the academy's superintendent, in response to an executive order issued by President Donald Trump in January, according to a court filing by the U.S. Justice Department in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The president's order on Jan. 27 said that 'every element of the Armed Forces should operate free from any preference based on race or sex.' It also directed the secretary of defense to conduct an internal review with respect to all 'activities designed to promote a race- or sex-based preferences system,' including reviews at the service academies.
'Under revised internal guidance issued by the Superintendent on Feb. 14, 2025, neither race, ethnicity, nor sex can be considered as a factor for admission at any point during the admissions process, including qualification and acceptance,' according to the court filing made public Friday.
The decision comes after a federal judge ruled in December that the academy could continue considering race in its admissions process. In that case, the judge found that military cohesion and other national security factors mean the school should not be subjected to the same standards as civilian universities.
During a two-week bench trial in September, attorneys for the academy argued that prioritizing diversity in the military makes it stronger, more effective and more widely respected.
The case against the policy was brought by the group Students for Fair Admissions, which was appealing the judge's decision.
The Justice Department asked in the filing on Friday to suspend the current briefing schedule in the case while the parties consider the change in the academy's policy.
'The parties require a reasonable amount of time to discuss the details of the Academy's new policy and to consider the appropriate next steps for this litigation, including whether this litigation is now moot and, if so, whether the district court judgment should be vacated,' the Justice Department wrote.
Students for Fair Admissions also brought the lawsuit challenging affirmative action that resulted in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2023.
The high court's conservative majority broadly prohibited the consideration of race and ethnicity in college admissions, ending a long-standing practice meant to boost opportunities for historically marginalized groups and sending shock waves through higher education. But it carved out a potential exemption for military academies, suggesting that national security interests could affect the legal analysis.
Students for Fair Admissions later sued the Annapolis-based Naval Academy, challenging the exemption. But Judge Richard Bennett rejected their arguments, saying that the school had 'established a compelling national security interest in a diverse officer corps.'
Attorneys for the group argued during trial that prioritizing minority candidates is unfair to qualified white applicants and that cohesion should arise from other sources such as training and command structure.
The academy argued in that case that its admissions process considers many factors, including grades, extracurricular activities, life experience and socioeconomic status, according to court testimony. Race often played no role in the process, but sometimes it came under consideration in a 'limited fashion,' attorneys for the academy wrote in court papers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Has no tax on tips passed? Here's where things stand
As a presidential candidate last year, Donald Trump called for no taxes on tips — an exemption from the federal income tax for all tipped income. So where does that promise stand now? There is a provision in the 'big, beautiful bill' passed by the House in May, which the Senate is now considering. The tax break is included in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, so it seems likely to make it into the final version sent to Trump's desk. Plus, the Senate already voted unanimously on a separate bill that would do the same thing. Here are answers to some common questions about the 'no tax on tips' proposal: Trump first proposed to end taxation on tipped income at a campaign rally on June 9, 2024, in Las Vegas, a direct appeal to the service workers in the swing state's tourism industry. 'So this is the first time I've said this, and for those hotel workers and people that get tips, you're going to be very happy, because when I get to office, we are going to not charge taxes on tips people [are] making,' Trump said. It was part of a broader set of proposals thrown out with little detail during the campaign, including a pledge to exempt overtime pay from income tax. It was one of Trump's more realistic promises, however, as the idea quickly gained bipartisan support, including from Kamala Harris' campaign and Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada plus Republicans such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. It was also one of a number of campaign pledges he promised would be fulfilled right away if he won a second term. The Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed the House, includes an income tax exemption for tips. As with the proposed $1,000 baby bonus and the exemption for income tax on overtime pay in the bill, the tips tax break would expire at the end of 2028, days before Trump's term ends. That helps Republicans in Congress keep the apparent cost of the bill down while setting up another fight on the issue just as the next president takes office. Under the House proposal, workers making less than $160,000 per year would qualify for the exemption. Tips would still have to be reported to the IRS, and they would be subject to withholding — meaning money would be taken out of each paycheck but workers would get it back if they were owed tax refunds the next April. Social Security and Medicare taxes would still apply to tipped income. The exemption would not apply to automatic gratuities for large parties at a restaurant and other service charges. The Senate passed a standalone bill called the No Tax on Tips Act in a surprise vote in late May. Rosen brought up the bill as a "unanimous consent" request, an accelerated process typically reserved for more routine issues, such as renaming post offices. But no senator objected, and the bill was quickly passed. The bill would create an income tax exemption of up to $25,000 for workers in jobs that have traditionally received tips who make less than $160,000. The exact jobs covered by the exemption would be decided by the Trump administration within 90 days of the bill's signing. As with the House bill, the Senate version would expire just as Trump leaves office. If it expires, the total cost of the measure would be about $40 billion. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that if the measure is extended over 10 years, it would cost more than $100 billion. The White House Council of Economic Advisers — which works for Trump — estimated that the measure would increase the average take-home pay for tipped workers by $1,675 per year. The Tax Policy Center, however, noted that the amount would vary greatly depending on the job. Half of all wait staff make $32,000 or less a year, which means they already pay little or no federal income tax. But the measure would give a much bigger break to the highest-paid tipped workers who make $60,000 or more a year. "A 20 percent tip on a $200 meal is vastly different than one for the $9.95 special at Mom's Diner," the nonprofit said in an analysis. As with the exemption on overtime pay, there's a wide range of possible outcomes. It's possible that the measure would simply end up reducing the annual tax bill for the top tipped workers and have no other effects. Or it could lead customers to give more — or possibly even less — in tips to wait staff, hairdressers and others once they know the money isn't taxed. Some economists think the exemption would undercut ongoing political efforts to increase the minimum wage for tipped workers, which is currently $2.13 per hour at the federal level. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. "No More Weapons," was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Read more: So what really happened at the cartel training site dubbed 'Mexican Auschwitz'? Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. "Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal," said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. "It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda," said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. Read more: Supreme Court throws out Mexico's suit against U.S. gun makers in a unanimous decision A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico "to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence." The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. "This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States," Sheinbaum said Friday. "But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico." Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Read more: Indigenous activist's disappearance and killing cause outcry in Mexico's Oaxaca state Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. "In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there," U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. "We want to help stop that flow." On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. "This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico," Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. "It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico." Read more: Trump wants to attack drug cartels. How can Mexico respond if he does? In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ("Boss of Bosses") pistol; and a handgun dubbed the "Emiliano Zapata," emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: "It is better to die standing than to live on your knees." Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic "war" on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. "The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups," said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. "And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns." Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rally for LGBTQ+ rights to convene at historic site in Washington
By Daniel Trotta WASHINGTON (Reuters) -LGBTQ+ people will gather on Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, site of Martin Luther King's 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech, for a political rally aimed at preserving decades of progress while protesting setbacks under President Donald Trump. After the festive nature of a parade on Saturday through the streets of the capital, the political demonstration may be the main event of the weeks-long WorldPride celebration, which moves around the globe every two years. It occurs in Washington at a time of high tension over LGBTQ+ rights in the U.S. Speakers are certain to rail against Trump, who has issued executive orders limiting transgender rights, banned transgender people from serving in the armed forces and rescinded anti-discrimination policies for LGBTQ+ people. The White House has defended its dismantling of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, calling DEI a form of discrimination, and said its transgender policy protects women by keeping transgender women out of shared spaces. The Trump administration has also touted its appointment of a number of openly gay people to cabinet posts and judgeships as evidence that Trump aims to serve all Americans. Before the main rally, transgender supporters will hold their own march to protest Trump's rhetoric and myriad state laws around the country that ban transgender healthcare services for minors. Backers of those laws say they are attempting to protect minors from starting on a path they may later regret. The transgender rally will march from the offices of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ+ organization in the U.S., toward the Lincoln Memorial, which is considered hallowed ground in the U.S. civil rights movement as the site of the King speech and the March on Washington that preceded historic legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
