Federal agency cancels plans to close DC park during WorldPride
The National Park Service reversed plans to close the park in Dupont Circle during the WorldPride parade this coming weekend, according to two local councilmembers.
The Park Service announced Monday evening that the park would be closed during festivities this coming weekend, according to multiple outlets, but the councilmembers said they spoke to Metropolitan Police Chief Pamela Smith on Tuesday morning and convinced her to reverse the decision.
'I spoke with Chief Smith this morning and I'm glad to report that the decision to close DuPont Circle Park is being rescinded. The Park is central to the lgbtq community, and neighbors will be able to enjoy it this year for World Pride,' DC Councilmember Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5) said in a post on X Tuesday.
DC Councilmember Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2) similarly said on X she worked with Smith and other members of the community and 'am thrilled to share the decision to close the Dupont Circle Park has been reversed.'
'People celebrating World Pride will be able to gather safely in the symbol of our city's historic LGBTQ+ community,' she wrote.
'I am grateful for MPD's efforts to keep DC residents and visitors safe while also ensuring Dupont Circle remains central to the festivities. Let's all remember to treat all of our neighbors and public spaces with respect and care this weekend — vandalism or violence will not be tolerated.'
Parker told The Washington Post that, in his conversations with Smith, she stressed that the decision to close the park was hers, not the federal government's. Smith made the decision over concerns related to safety, property damage and police resources, Parker told the Post.
Smith added that police will need to be reallocated to the park over the weekend to make sure it can stay open, Parker told the Post.
Parker said in his interview with the Post that he conveyed the importance of the park to the LGBTQ community and, 'And the chief, to her credit, took a lot of that to heart and found an alternative way to keep the park open.'
In the statement Monday evening, a spokesperson for the Park Service said the decision to close the park was made at the request of DC police to help 'keep the community and visitors safe and protect one of D.C.'s most treasured public spaces.'
He also noted that the decision adhered to President Trump's executive order on protecting federal monuments, the Post reported.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court strikes down Mexico's lawsuit against US gun manufacturers
The United States Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit from the government of Mexico that argued American gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson failed to prevent illegal firearm sales to cartels and criminal organisations. In one of a slew of decisions handed down on Thursday, the top court decided that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shielded the gun manufacturers from Mexico's suit. The court's decision was unanimous. Writing for the nine-member bench, Justice Elena Kagan explained that even 'indifference' to the trafficking of firearms does not amount to willfully assisting a criminal enterprise. 'Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers,' Kagan wrote (PDF). 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales.' The Mexican government's complaint, she added, 'does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted'. The case stems from a complaint filed in August 2021 in a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. In that initial complaint, the Mexican government — then led by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador — argued that the sheer volume of firearms illegally smuggled into its country amounted to negligence on the part of gun manufacturers. Those firearms, it said, had exacted a devastating toll on Mexican society. The country has some of the highest homicide rates in the world, with the United Nations estimating in 2023 that nearly 25 intentional killings happen for every 100,000 people. Much of that crime has been credited to the presence of cartels and other criminal enterprises operating in Mexico. The Igarape Institute, a Brazil-based think tank, estimated that Mexico's crime cost the country nearly 1.92 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) from 2010 to 2014. The US is the largest arms manufacturer in the world — and also the largest source of illegally sourced firearms. The stream of firearms that pour into Mexico and the broader Latin America region, for instance, has been dubbed the 'iron river'. Nearly 70 percent of the illegal guns seized in Mexico from 2014 to 2018, for instance, were traced to origins in the US, according to the Department of Justice. That has led countries like Mexico to demand action from the US to limit the number of firearms trafficked abroad. In its lawsuit, Mexico targeted some of the biggest names in gun manufacturing in the US: not just Smith & Wesson, but also companies like Beretta USA, Glock Inc and Colt's Manufacturing LLC. But the firearm companies pushed back against the lawsuit, arguing they could not be held responsible for the actions of criminals in another country. The Supreme Court itself cast doubt on some of Mexico's arguments, including the idea that the gun manufacturers designed and marketed their products specifically for cartel buyers. 'Mexico focuses on production of 'military style' assault weapons, but these products are widely legal and purchased by ordinary consumers. Manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting criminal acts simply because Mexican cartel members also prefer these guns,' Justice Kagan wrote. 'The same applies to firearms with Spanish language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history,' she added. 'While they may be 'coveted by the cartels,' they also may appeal to 'millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.'' On Thursday, an industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), celebrated the Supreme Court's decision as a 'tremendous victory' against an unfair charge. It had filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants in the case. 'For too long, gun control activists have attempted to twist basic tort law to malign the highly-regulated U.S. firearm industry with the criminal actions of violent organized crime, both here in the United States and abroad,' the group's senior vice president, Lawrence G Keane, said in a statement. Keane added that he and others in the firearm industry felt 'sympathetic to plight of those in Mexico who are victims of rampant and uncontrolled violence at the hands of narco-terrorist drug cartels'. But he said the issue was about 'responsible firearm ownership', not the actions of gun manufacturers.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
On a big decision day, the Supreme Court sent a message about unity
Supreme Court justices sent a message to the American public on Thursday: We're not as divided as you think. Of the six rulings that were released, four were unanimous, including the opinions in high-profile battles over reverse discrimination and faith-based tax breaks. Another decision was nearly unanimous, with just one justice peeling away on one part of the ruling. And the sixth decision had just one dissent, meaning that nearly all of the justices agreed with the plan to dismiss the case as 'improvidently granted.' Here's an overview of the six rulings released on Thursday — and a look at what's still to come from the Supreme Court in June. Ruling: Unanimous In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the court was considering whether members of a majority group, such as straight, white males, should have to meet a higher burden of proof in order to make an employment discrimination claim. The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a straight, white woman, who accused her former employer of privileging LGBTQ employees during the promotion process. Ames lost in front of lower courts, but the Supreme Court overturned those decisions on Thursday. The justices unanimously said that members of majority groups should not have to meet a higher burden of proof and sent Ames' case back to the lower courts for reconsideration. The question in this case is whether ... a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' We hold that this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico, the court was asked to determine whether the Mexican government could sue seven gun manufacturers based in the U.S. over their role in unlawful gun sales in Mexico. The Supreme Court unanimously said on Thursday that the Mexican government's lawsuit cannot move forward 'because Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.' 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales 'as in something that (they) wish to bring about,'' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the state of Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment's religious freedom protections by denying a faith-based tax break to a group of Catholic nonprofits. The nonprofits said their service to people in need was clearly motivated by Catholic teachings, but Wisconsin officials said they didn't qualify for the religious exemption to the state's unemployment tax because they did not seek to serve only Catholics or evangelize to their clients, as the Deseret News previously reported. State officials won in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which said that the Catholic nonprofits' work did not serve 'primarily religious purposes.' In Thursday's unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment by privileging certain religious beliefs and actions over others. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In CC/Devas (Mauritius) v. Antrix, the justices were considering under what circumstances federal courts in the U.S. can assert jurisdiction over foreign states. The case stemmed from a conflict between a company that's active in the U.S. and a corporation owned by India. The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that federal courts did have jurisdiction over India in this dispute and reversed a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion. Ruling: Nearly unanimous, with one justice taking issue with one part of the majority opinion. In Blom Bank v. Honickman, the court was considering whether victims of terrorist attacks or their surviving family members could reopen their case against a bank that had allegedly aided and abetted terrorists by providing financial services. The Supreme Court ruled that the people who brought the case did not meet the high standard that must be cleared to reopen the case. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, was nearly unanimous. Eight of the justices, including Thomas, joined it in full, but Jackson only joined it in part. Ruling: Dismissed as improvidently granted, with one justice dissenting to the dismissal In Lab Corp v. Davis, the justices were considering whether a federal court can certify a class action suit if some of the parties in the suit lack legal standing. A majority of the justices decided to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, meaning that they felt the court should never have agreed to weigh in. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented to that decision, writing that he felt it was possible — and would be valuable — to rule on the case. The Supreme Court will release around two dozen more rulings throughout the month of June as it works to wrap up its 2024-25 term by early July. The justices have yet to announce their decision in four of the five cases that the Deseret News highlighted in its list of this term's highest profile battles. The Supreme Court's next decision day has not yet been announced, but it will likely be Thursday, June 12.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court throws out Mexico's lawsuit against US gun industry
The Supreme Court unanimously threw out Mexico's multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against the American gun industry on Thursday that sought to usher in major changes to firearm sales by holding companies liable for cartel violence. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, said the lawsuit is barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a 2005 federal law that has provided firearms manufacturers broad legal immunity and come under criticism under from gun control advocates. Mexico claimed its lawsuit fell under an exception to the PLCAA that still permits lawsuits when a company 'knowingly violated' firearms laws and the violation proximately harmed the person suing. 'But that exception, if Mexico's suit fell within it, would swallow most of the rule,' Kagan wrote. 'We doubt Congress intended to draft such a capacious way out of PLCAA, and in fact it did not.' Mexico sued seven firearms manufacturers and one wholesaler in 2021, including Smith & Wesson and Glock, alleging they aided and abetted violence south of the border by not doing more to stop their guns from falling into Mexican cartels' hands. Most of the companies had since been dismissed from the lawsuit on other grounds, but two remained. The country sought $10 billion damages and a court injunction that would mandate various restrictions on how the companies could market and distribute guns. The Supreme Court took up the companies' appeal after a lower court allowed the lawsuit to proceed. The firearms industry was backed by gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association and the Firearms Policy Coalition, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and his leadership team, more than three dozen other Republican lawmakers, 26 Republican state attorneys general and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mexico was backed by gun control groups like Everytown and March for our Lives Action Fund, roughly 40 Democratic lawmakers and Democratic state attorneys general from Washington, D.C. and 16 states. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
