3 Siouxland tribes receiving federal home-funding grants
(KCAU) — Three Native American tribes in Siouxland received grants for affordable housing activities from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The Ponca Tribe of Nebraska obtained more than $5.2 million, while the Winnebago Tribe was awarded a little over $2 million. The Santee Sioux Nation received more than $1 million.
The money comes from $1.1 billion in housing block grant funding for tribes nationwide. If you'd like to see a full list of tribes awarded funds, click here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
‘Prudent remedy' for veto error is special session, Legislative Council advises
Gov. Kelly Armstrong speaks during a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 27, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) Legal staff for North Dakota's legislative branch concluded the 'prudent remedy' to correct an error with Gov. Kelly Armstrong's line-item veto would be for the governor to call a special session, according to a memo issued Friday. But Attorney General Drew Wrigley, who is working on a separate opinion, maintains that Legislative Council has no role in determining the execution of the governor's veto. Armstrong announced May 22 a 'markup error' with a line-item veto that crossed out $35 million for a state housing development fund. The red X over the funding did not match what Armstrong indicated in his veto message that explained his reasoning. North Dakota governor unintentionally vetoes $35 million for housing programs A Legislative Council memo distributed to lawmakers Friday concluded that legal precedent supports the marked-up bill as the official veto document. 'Engaging in interpretive gymnastics' to disregard the markings on the bill could lead to unintended consequences in the future, Legislative Council concluded. Emily Thompson, legal division director for Legislative Council, said the Legislature needs to have an objective document to clearly illustrate what was vetoed, such as the specific veto markings on the bill, so lawmakers can exercise their veto override authority effectively. Lawmakers have six days remaining in their 80-day limit and could call themselves back into session to address the veto. However, the memo cautions that the Legislature may need those days to reconvene to respond to federal funding issues or other unforeseen reasons. Legislative Council recommends the governor call a special session, which would not count against the 80-day limit. A special session of the Legislature costs about $65,000 per day, according to Legislative Council. Armstrong is waiting for an attorney general's opinion to determine the next steps, according to a statement from his office. He previously said he would call a special session if necessary. Wrigley said Friday it's up to his office to assess the situation and issue an opinion on the governor's question. 'The power in question is strictly the governor's power and it has to be in compliance with the constitution and laws of North Dakota,' Wrigley said. 'That's the only assessment here. There's no role for this in Legislative Council. They have no authority in this regard.' Armstrong on May 19 issued two line-item vetoes in Senate Bill 2014, the budget for the state Industrial Commission. His veto message explained his reasons for objecting to a $150,000 one-time grant for a Native American-focused organization to fund a homelessness liaison position. But the marking also crossed out $25 million for housing projects and programs and $10 million to combat homelessness, which he later said he did not intend to veto. Chris Joseph, general counsel for Armstrong, wrote in a request for an attorney general's opinion that the markings served as a 'color-coded visual aid,' and the veto message should control the extent of the veto. Wrigley said his office is working on the opinion and aware that resolution of the issue is time sensitive. Bills passed by the Legislature with appropriations attached to them, such as the Industrial Commission budget, go into effect July 1. 'I look forward to publishing my opinion on that at the earliest possible time,' he said. The Legislative Council memo states, 'It would not be appropriate to allow the governor and attorney general to resolve the ambiguity by agreement.' In addition, Legislative Council concluded that if the governor's veto message is to be considered the controlling document for vetoes in the future, more ambiguities would likely be 'inevitable and frequent' and require resolution through the courts. The memo cites a 2018 North Dakota Supreme Court opinion involving a case between the Legislature and then-Gov. Doug Burgum that ruled 'a veto is complete and irrevocable upon return of the vetoed bill to the originating house,' and further stated the governor does not have the power to 'withdraw a veto.' 'Setting a precedent of the attorney general issuing a letter saying we can just go ahead and interpret the governor's veto message to mean what was, or was not, vetoed, that's a really concerning precedent to set,' Thompson said in an interview. Wrigley said any issues resulting from the opinion could be addressed by the courts. 'I sincerely hope that they (Legislative Council) are not trying to somehow publicly advocate, or attempt to influence a process for which they have no role,' Wrigley said. Legislative Council memo SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Big Brother Big Sisters of Siouxland appoints new executive director
SIOUX CITY, Iowa (KCAU) — Big Brothers Big Sisters of Siouxland will soon have a new executive director. Ciarra Prather will be taking over as executive director of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Siouxland (BBBS), as Kristie Arlt will be relocating to Omaha. Prather brings a background in sales, leadership, marketing, public relations, strategic communication, and community engagement into her new role. Some of this experience was fostered here at KCAU 9. 'Originally from Utah and raised in Iowa, I've always felt connected to the values of hard work, integrity, and community,' said Prather. 'I'm honored to lead Big Brothers Big Sisters of Siouxland and look forward to building on the strong foundation Kristie has created.' Story continues below Top Story: Local band to be featured on Saturday in the Park Main Stage Lights & Sirens: Part of roof collapses during fire at Dakota City boat dealer Sports: Construction of multi-sport complex west of Lewis and Clark Park proposed Weather: Get the latest weather forecast here Prather's appointment will be effective starting on June 30, and Arlt will be around until the end of July. Arlt voiced support in BBBS's decision. 'After nearly seven incredible years leading Big Brothers Big Sisters of Siouxland, I am moving to Omaha with a heart full of gratitude,' Arlt said. 'It has been the greatest privilege to witness the impact our mentors have made on the lives of so many children. As I pass the baton, I am filled with confidence and joy knowing that Ciarra will lead with the same passion, determination, and heart. Her experience, energy, and vision will be an amazing gift to the organization and the community.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Government moves to drop Sheetz race case after Trump halts use of key civil rights tool
Federal authorities moved Friday to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump's administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country's civil rights laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the top federal agency for enforcing workers rights, filed a motion in a Pennsylvania federal court to dismiss the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of 'disparate impact liability' in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay. Trump's executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people. In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company's policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants. The lawsuit could survive even if the EEOC drops it: A Black worker who was let go from his Sheetz job in Pennsylvania filed a motion in federal court Thursday evening to intervene and pursue his own class action lawsuit. In its motion Friday, the EEOC asked the court to delay its dismissal of the lawsuit for 60 days to allow potential claimants to intervene. The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs. In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job. The April 23 order declared that it is 'the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.' The order argued that disparate impact has become a 'key tool' of a 'pernicious movement' that threatens meritocracy in favor of 'racial balancing' in the workforce. Craig Leen, a former top official at the Labor Department under the first Trump administration, said while the executive order take a more aggressive approach, it reflects long-standing conservative concerns that disparate impact liability encourages the assumption that any racial imbalance in the workforce is a result of discrimination. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, said the Trump administration would rightfully 'focus on individual discrimination cases,' which she said are 'more factually sound, less susceptible to manipulation, and more closely hews to the original intent' of civil rights law. The EEOC filed the original Sheetz lawsuit after an eight-year investigation that arose from complaints filed by two job applicants. But following Trump's disparate impact order, the EEOC filed a motion District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the lawsuit. The EEOC had sent letters to potential claimants notifying them of its intention to drop the case and urging them to act quickly if they wished to intervene. U.S. workers can pursue federal discrimination lawsuits on their own if the EEOC declines to take up their complaints but often don't because of the resources required. The EEOC declined to comment further on the case. One of the potential claimants, Kenni Miller, filed a motion to intervene late Thursday. Miller, 32, was hired as a shift supervisor at a Sheetz in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in 2020, according to the motion filed by the law firm Outten & Golden, which represents workers in employment disputes, and the Public Interest Law Center. After working there for a month, Miller was told he failed the background check because of a felony drug conviction and was let go, according to the motion. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Sheetz' policy of denying jobs who anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% Black job applicants being denied employment, compared to 8% of white applicants. For Native American applicants, the rate was 13%, and for multiracial applicants, it was 13.5%. In court filings, Sheetz denied the allegations. Attorneys for the company, which is being represented by the law firm Littler, declined to comment further. The EEOC has not said how many potential claimants have been identified but Outten & Golden estimates the number to likely be in the thousands. Sheetz has more than 20,000 employees and operate at least 700 brand-store locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, according to court documents. The Sheetz case echoes a 2018 lawsuit against Target claiming that the retailer's hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept Black and Hispanic applicants from getting entry level jobs. Target agreed to pay more than $3.7 million to settle the lawsuit, and revised its policy so fewer applicants with criminal records would be disqualified. In 2020, Walmart agreed to pay $20 million and discontinue a preemployment strength test that the EEOC had claimed in a lawsuit unfairly excluded women from jobs at grocery distribution centers. And in one of the biggest sex discrimination cases in recent years, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers, agreed in 2022 to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit alleging that some 68,000 women had been subjected for years to unfair pay and promotion practices. The Justice Department, EEOC and other federal agencies have moved quickly to quash the use of disparate impact liability. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, for example, has moved to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits against police departments in Kentucky and Minnesota, saying the cases claimed patterns of unconstitutional policing practices 'by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination.' In a May memo to employers, EEOC Acting Chief Andrea Lucas said the agency would deprioritize disparate impact cases. She also warned companies against using demographic data, which large companies are required gather and submit annually to the EEOC, to justify policies that favor any employees based on race or sex, something Lucas has long argued many well-intentioned DEI policies do in violation of Title VII. A Supreme Court ruling Thursday could help open the door for more complaints against DEI policies that Lucas has said will be her priority. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with Outten & Golden, said the pullback on federal enforcement of disparate impact risks dissuading companies from proactively examining hiring and other practices to ensure they do not discriminate. At the same time, Yang and nine other former Democratic EEOC commissioners and counsels have released a letter to employers emphasizing that the Trump's order does not change the law. 'Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law,' wrote the former EEOC officials. ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
