‘No Kings' protests dwarf Trump's military parade
The Trump administration and the organizers of the 'No Kings' protests are in a war of spin over attendance numbers at their respective events on the weekend.
The White House claimed 250,000 attended the U.S. Army parade in Washington, D.C., while outside estimates suggest the crowd was smaller than the expected 200,000.
Meanwhile, organizers estimate that between four and six million people attended 'No Kings' protests across some 2,000 cities and towns, dwarfing the attendance at the Army parade.
The 'No Kings' protests were intentionally held outside of Washington to draw focus away from the President and highlight community rejection of 'strongman politics and corruption.'
Saturday also saw U.S. Marines joining law enforcement in Los Angeles to respond to ongoing unrest related to the Trump administration's immigration raids.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court to hear dispute involving anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center
June 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider reviving a New Jersey crisis pregnancy center operator's bid to block the Democratic-led state's attorney general from investigating whether it deceived women into believing it offered abortions. The justices took up an appeal by First Choice Women's Resource Center of a lower court's ruling that the crisis pregnancy center must first contest Attorney General Matthew Platkin's subpoena in state court before bringing a federal lawsuit challenging it. The justices are expected to hear the case in their next term, which begins in October. Crisis pregnancy centers provide services to pregnant women with the goal of preventing them from having abortions. Such centers do not advertise their anti-abortion stance, and abortion rights advocates have called them deceptive. The case provides a test of the ability of state authorities to regulate these businesses. First Choice, which has five locations in New Jersey, has argued that it has a right to bring its case in federal court because it was alleging a violation of its federal rights to free speech and free association under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. First Choice is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has brought other cases on behalf of anti-abortion plaintiffs including an effort to restrict distribution of the abortion pill that has since been taken over by Republican states. First Choice sued Platkin in New Jersey federal court in 2023 after the attorney general issued a subpoena seeking internal records including the names of its doctors and donors as part of an investigation into potentially unlawful practices. First Choice argued that there was no good cause for the subpoena, which it said chilled its First Amendment rights. Platkin moved to enforce the subpoena in state court. Essex County Superior Court Judge Lisa Adubato granted that motion, finding that First Choice had not shown that the subpoena should be quashed at the outset of the investigation, but ordered the parties to negotiate a narrower subpoena and said that the constitutional issues could be litigated further going forward. U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp then dismissed the federal case, finding that First Choice's federal claim was not ripe because it could continue to make its constitutional claims in the state court and did not face any immediate threat of contempt. The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling in December 2024 upheld Shipp's ruling, prompting First Choice to appeal to the justices. In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, First Choice argued that federal civil rights law is intended to guarantee parties a federal forum to assert their constitutional rights. It said that forcing it to litigate in state court would effectively deny it that forum, since the constitutional claims would be decided before a federal court could ever hear them. Crisis pregnancy centers have also drawn the attention of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who in 2024 sued 11 centers for advertising abortion pill reversal, a treatment whose safety and effectiveness is unproven. That case remains pending. Several New York crisis pregnancy centers sued James and in August won an order allowing them to continue touting abortion pill reversal.
Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court to hear Chevron, Exxon appeal over Louisiana coastal damage
June 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a bid by Chevron (CVX.N), opens new tab, Exxon Mobil (XOM.N), opens new tab and other oil and gas companies to have lawsuits brought by two Louisiana localities accusing them of harming the state's coast over a period of decades moved out of state court and into federal court. The justices took up an appeal by the companies of a lower court's ruling rejecting their claims that the lawsuits belong in federal court because the parishes of Plaquemines and Cameron were suing over oil production activities undertaken to fulfill U.S. government refinery contracts during World War Two. Federal court is considered a friendlier venue for businesses in such litigation. The justices are due to hear the case in their next term, which begins in October. Beginning in 2013, six Louisiana parishes along the coast filed 42 lawsuits accusing the oil and gas companies of violating Louisiana's State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, a state permitting law. In the first of those to go to trial, a jury in April found that Chevron must pay Plaquemines Parish $744.6 million. The appeal by the companies to the U.S. Supreme Court concerned the suit by Plaquemines and one by Cameron parish, both of which raised jurisdictional issues common to a subset of the 42 cases. The various parishes accused the companies of damaging coastal marshlands through dredging and pipeline development and have sought billions of dollars in damages to fund land restoration and storm protection efforts to mitigate erosion. The companies have long argued those cases have no business being in state court, a venue considered more favorable to plaintiffs. They pointed to the April verdict to underscore the stakes in the litigation in asking the Supreme Court to take up their appeal. The justices in 2023 declined to hear an appeal of an earlier ruling sending the cases back to state court on different grounds. The latest appeal was based on a U.S. law that authorizes federal officers and contractors acting under them who are facing litigation in state court involving their official duties to move the matter to federal court, with the goal of avoiding local interests prejudicing the proceedings. The companies said the cases belonged in federal court because the companies had federal contracts to supply the U.S. government with refined petroleum products during World War Two and produced oil to fulfill the contracts. But the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld decisions by lower courts remanding the cases back to state court, saying the exploration and production activities at issue were unrelated to the companies' contracted refining operations.
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Police use tear gas on anti-Trump protesters in LA
Tensions rose at "No Kings" protests against Donald Trump in downtown Los Angeles on the weekend. Law enforcement used officers on horseback, flash bangs, and tear gas to push back and clear out protesters after the formal event concluded. Millions participated in protests against Trump's agenda in more than 2,000 communities, coinciding with a military parade in Washington, D.C., for the Army's 250th anniversary and the president's birthday. The demonstrations were organised to protest against what organisers termed President Trump's authoritarian agenda, including recent immigration raids. Watch the video in full above.
