IndyStar will go live for a session recap on Friday. Here's how to watch
Show Caption
Wondering which bills crossed the finish line in the final hours of the 2025 Indiana Legislative session? And who are the biggest winners and losers?
IndyStar's Statehouse team will go live with analysis and a recap of the session on Friday during your lunch break, less than 24 hours after lawmakers are planning to pack up and go home for the year.
Government and politics editor Kaitlin Lange will talk with senior government accountability reporter Hayleigh Colombo and Statehouse reporters Brittany Carloni and Kayla Dwyer about the most significant legislation debated this year, including bills increasing the cigarette tax, banning DEI and cracking down on illegal immigration.
We'll also talk about what savings Hoosiers can expect from the property tax bill Braun already signed.
Tune in here on at 11:30 a.m. Friday for our 2025 Legislative Session Recap show.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Navy to strip gay rights activist Harvey Milk's name from oil tanker
WASHINGTON − The Navy will rename an oil tanker that named after slain gay rights activist Harvey Milk, U.S. officials told Reuters on Tuesday, the latest move in the military under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to root out diversity, equity and inclusion. In 2016, the U.S. Navy said it would name one of its new class of oil tankers after Milk, a Navy veteran who later became one of the first openly gay people elected to public office in the United States. The USNS Harvey Milk was christened in 2021, as part of the John Lewis class of tankers. More: Stonewall veterans sound alarm over Trump's attempt to erase trans history A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the directive for the change came from Hegseth's office. In a statement, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said Hegseth was committed to ensuring names of military installations and equipment "are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos. "Any potential renaming(s) will be announced after internal reviews are complete," Parnell said. The Pentagon and the U.S. Navy did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The official said it was unclear when the renaming would actually take place, but noted that June is Pride Month, observed annually to honor the LGBTQ rights movement. More: Military schools threaten pro-DEI student protesters with disciplinary action Another official said it would not be surprising if additional ships in the John Lewis class were renamed, since other tankers honored civil rights and human rights leaders. The planned name change was first reported by military news website Milk served in the U.S. Navy in 1951 as a diving officer during the Korean War. Elected to the San Francisco board of supervisors as the first openly gay California politician, he was killed in office in 1978. Since taking office in January, Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has eliminated diversity initiatives at the Pentagon and ended observances of identity celebrations such as Black History Month. DEI programs seek to promote opportunities for women, ethnic minorities and other traditionally underrepresented groups. Civil rights advocates argue that such programs, generally backed by Democrats, are needed to address longstanding inequities and structural racism. They have come under attack from conservatives, who say race- and gender-focused initiatives are inherently discriminatory and fail to prioritize merit. In February, Hegseth chided past celebrations of the U.S. military's diversity in a broad address to Pentagon staff, saying: "I think the single dumbest phrase in military history is 'our diversity is our strength.'" This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Hegseth strips gay icon Harvey Milk's name from Navy ship
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
New Hampshire Senate approves $15.9 billion state budget plan
New Hampshire senators debate various aspects of the budget in the State House Thursday, June 5, 2025. (Photo by William Skipworth/New Hampshire Bulletin) The New Hampshire Senate approved a roughly $15.9 billion two-year state budget Thursday. The Senate passed House Bill 1 — the budget — and House Bill 2 — accompanying legislation that adjusts policy necessary to implement the budget — on votes of 15-9 and 14-10, respectively. Leading up to the second vote, Democrats proposed a series of amendments to remove or curtail Republican priorities, such as the voucher-like education freedom account program, and provide funding for their priorities, such as the renewable energy fund. All the amendments were voted down by the Republican majority. The Senate's budget vote comes two months after the House passed its version of the budget. In April, the Republican-controlled House approved a roughly $15.5 billion budget. The Senate's budget marks a more optimistic outlook and cuts state services less harshly, though it is a far cry from the larger budget Gov. Kelly Ayotte requested. The House, pessimistic about how much revenue the state would receive from business tax revenues, made heavy reductions to state services. That includes entirely eliminating the Office of the Child Advocate, the Housing Appeals Board, the Commission for Human Rights, and the State Commission on Aging. In their budget, the Senate, which was slightly more bullish about tax revenues, restored those agencies, but reduced them to save money. For example, the House had laid off the entirety of the Office of Child Advocate's staff of nine; the Senate restored the office, but eliminated four positions. The Senate also rolled back the House's layoffs in the Department of Corrections from 190 positions to 60 civilian positions, many of which are currently vacant. It also set aside more money to a settlement fund created in response to a massive abuse scandal at the state-run Youth Development Center, in which courts are compelling them to pay settlements to victims. The Senate also reversed a 3% cut to Medicaid reimbursement rates made by the House. However, there were some places where the Senate cut more deeply than the House, such as special education in public schools and $32 million of general 'back of the budget' cuts that gives Ayotte's administration the flexibility to decide where to cut. The House and Senate are now set to enter a process called committees of conference, in which they'll hash out the differences between their two budget proposals. They'll have two weeks to merge their budget proposals into one before their deadline to send a budget to Ayotte's desk. Ayotte, the state's Republican governor, will then have the choice of whether to sign, veto, or allow the budget to pass without her signature.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules discrimination laws protect all equally, including 'majority group' members
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the nation's anti-discrimination laws apply equally to all employees, regardless of whether those complaining of bias are white or Black, gay or straight. In a short and unanimous opinion, the justices rejected as outdated and mistaken the view that "members of a majority group" must show more evidence of discrimination before they can sue and win. Instead, the justices said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has always prohibited workplace discrimination against "any individual" who suffers discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin and sex, including sexual orientation. The law "draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said. The ruling revives a discrimination lawsuit brought by Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who said she was demoted and discriminated against by a lesbian who became her supervisor. She was then replaced by a gay man who had less experience. Ames is a heterosexual woman. She sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, and alleged she was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation. But a federal judge rejected her discrimination claim, and the 6th Circuit Court in Cincinnati affirmed that decision. In doing so, the judges said she could not point to "background circumstances" or statistical evidence suggesting that hers was the "unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." Law students at the University of Virginia Law School appealed her case to the Supreme Court. They pointed out that the 6th Circuit and several other courts continue to use an outdated, two-track approach to discrimination claims. This is not the standard in much of the nation, however. For example, they said the 9th Circuit Court based in California does not follow this approach, which would require more proof of discrimination from whites or men or heterosexuals. But the law students said the court should hear the Ames case and clarify the law nationwide. Although the case did not directly involve DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion, it gained added attention because of President Trump's drive to rid the government of DEI policies. Jackson said the Supreme Court for more than 50 years has steadily rejected the view that discrimination laws apply differently to different groups of people. In Griggs vs. Duke Power in 1971, "we said that '[d]iscriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed.'" A few years later, the court rejected the two-track approach, she said, "holding that Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] prohibited racial discrimination against the white petitioners in th[at] case upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes.' Lawyers for the Biden and Trump administrations had urged the court to overrule the 6th Circuit and make clear there is no double standard for deciding discrimination claims In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the "majority" in the workplace differs by workplace. "Women make up the majority of employees in certain industries, such as teaching and nursing, but the minority in other industries, such as construction." "Defining the 'majority' is even more difficult in the context of race," he wrote. "American families have become increasingly multicultural, and attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time." The court's ruling in Ames vs. Ohio Department of Youth Services said the Ohio court should reopen and reconsider Ames' claim of discrimination. Experts in discrimination law said the decision will have an effect in some regions but not others. "As a practical matter, more 'reverse discrimination' lawsuits may survive a motion to dismiss," said Evan Parness, an attorney at the Covington law firm in New York. Although the decision doesn't significantly change how federal district courts in California operate, it has implications for some courts in other parts of the country that require the higher burden of proof, said Elizabeth Beske, professor of law at American University in Washington. The 'background circumstances' rule was first applied in D.C. courts, after a white man sued the Baltimore and Ohio railroad company arguing he was discriminated against when jobs were instead given to Black and female applicants. The court held that 'it defie[d] common sense to suggest that the promotion of a Black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white co-workers in our present society.' Columbia Law professor Olatunde C. Johnson said the "opinion is not surprising. It depends on a straightforward and sensible statutory reading of Title VII. The 6th Circuit's 'background circumstances' approach was not typical, so I don't expect the case to dramatically change employment discrimination litigation on the ground." Brian McGinnis, an attorney with the firm Fox Rothschild, said because the decision was unanimous, which is rare, it shows an uncontroversial and 'pretty straightforward' perspective that there is no historical basis in case law for requiring extra proof from white, heterosexual or other majority groups. And it represents an effort by the court to streamline and eliminate the need for additional steps in litigation, he said. There is some question as to how the change is applied, but McGinnis doesn't expect any issues. "There is some potential for mischief, but I don't think it will have much change on the day-to-day operations of many employers or courts," McGinnis said. 'The short answer is, it should not change much.' Savage reported from Washington and Hussain from Los Angeles. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
