Latest news with #LGBTQ-inclusive
Newsweek
5 days ago
- Business
- Newsweek
What Happened to All the Corporate Pride Logos?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. In a notable shift from recent years, a number of blue-chip corporations and sports organizations are quietly scaling back their public-facing support for LGBTQ+ Pride Month in 2025. About 39 percent of corporate executives say their companies are reducing public Pride efforts this year, according to a recent survey from Gravity Research. That includes less frequent use of rainbow-themed logos, fewer social media posts and scaled-back sponsorships of Pride events. The Context The change comes as brands grapple with political pressure and the fallout from past controversies, including 2023's high-profile backlash against Bud Light and Target for LGBTQ-inclusive campaigns. This pivot coincides with the Trump administration's scrutiny over both federal and private sector DEI programs. Multiple federal agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), have reportedly threatened investigations into corporate diversity practices. What To Know The muted corporate response this year marks a break from recent traditions. BMW, for example, updated its logo across its global social media footprint last June to reflect Pride Month, even going so far as to defend the decision when a user on X questioned why the rainbow flag was conspicuously absent on its Middle East corporate logos. This is an established practice at the BMW Group, which also takes into consideration market-specific legal regulations and country-specific cultural aspects (4/4) — BMW (@BMW) June 1, 2024 But in 2025, the German carmaker has not repeated the gesture, according to a Newsweek analysis of the company's public-facing social media accounts. Cisco, the Silicon Valley tech giant, also skipped updating its logo this year after incorporating the rainbow flag into its logo as recently as 2024. BMW's Facebook page in 2025 versus 2024. BMW's Facebook page in 2025 versus 2024. Facebook Cisco's Facebook page in 2025 versus 2024. Cisco's Facebook page in 2025 versus 2024. Cisco Newsweek reached out to both Cisco and BMW for comment. The NFL, too, has seen reduced visibility: Only four teams—the Minnesota Vikings, Detroit Lions, Buffalo Bills and Los Angeles Chargers—have changed their logos to mark Pride this June. Most others have remained silent, a departure from the broader participation seen in prior years. According to the ML Football account on X, 12 NFL teams haven't posted about Pride Month: the Baltimore Ravens, Cincinnati Bengals, Cleveland Browns, Pittsburgh Steelers, Kansas City Chiefs, New York Jets, New Orleans Saints, Tennessee Titans, Las Vegas Raiders, Indianapolis Colts, Seattle Seahawks and Dallas Cowboys. Recent public backlash to corporate Pride campaigns has cast a long shadow. Bud Light's partnership with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney spurred boycotts, political outrage and a significant loss of revenue for parent company AB Inbev. Bud Light even lost its long-held position as America's top-selling beer in May 2023, when it was overtaken by Modelo. Target removed Pride merchandise from stores after staff received threats based on viral social media posts. This year, the retailer is limiting Pride products to select stores, with the full collection only available online. Bank of America is also among the brands that appears to have abandoned much of their Pride marketing following the 2023 backlash, dropping the hashtag #BofAPride for the second consecutive year. The campaign had run uninterrupted from 2018 to 2023. Longtime corporate sponsors are also backing away from public Pride involvement. NYC Pride lost support from Nissan and PepsiCo, while San Francisco Pride saw Comcast, Anheuser-Busch and Diageo withdraw sponsorships. Even defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton dropped its DEI division and abandoned its WorldPride 2025 commitment, despite the global event behind held in its backyard of Washington, D.C. this year. The decisions reflects a broader cultural and political shift, with many executives citing the Trump administration's hostile stance toward diversity programs and transgender rights as a core reason for retreating. In January, shortly after Trump's return to the White House, the State Department enacted a "one flag policy," banning U.S. embassies and overseas missions from flying pride or Black Lives Matter flags. What People Are Saying Jeff Melnyk, founding partner at the corporate consulting firm Within People, on LinkedIn Pulse: "Pride was started as a riot by people shouting for change," he wrote. "Before our flag becomes part of your logo, consider what you are really standing for." Sarah Kate Ellis, president of advocacy group GLAAD, to CNN: "I do see there's pivoting happening (for Pride Month). What I don't see is corporates walking away from the LGBTQ community." What Happens Next A number of events and celebrations will take place in the U.S. during Pride Month. The annual WorldPride event is ongoing in D.C., and pride marches and parades will take place in cities including New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago in the weeks ahead. Those events are expected to have fewer high-profile corporate sponsors than in past years. In New York, the organization behind NYC Pride reported a $750,000 budget shortfall after some sponsors scaled back or ended their support of the annual festivities.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court denies student's right to wear 'only two genders' T-shirt at school
The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a middle-school student's claim he had a free-speech right to wear a T-shirt stating there are "only two genders." Over two dissents, the justices let stand a ruling that said a school may enforce a dress code to protect students from "hate speech" or bullying. After three months of internal debate, the justices decided they would not take up another conservative, culture war challenge to progressive policies that protect LGBTQ+ youth. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed a 14-page dissent joined only by Justice Clarence Thomas. He said the case "presented an issue of great importance for our nation's youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech because it expresses a viewpoint the schools disfavor." Liam Morrison, a 7th grader from Massachusetts, said he was responding to his school's promotion of Pride Month when students were encouraged to wear rainbow colors and posters urged them to "rise up to protect trans and gender non-confirming students." Two years ago, he went to school wearing a black T-shirt that said "There are only two genders." Read more: Supreme Court splits 4-4, blocking first religious charter school in Oklahoma A teacher reported him to the principal who sent him home to change his shirt. A few weeks later, he returned with the word "censored" taped over the words "two genders" but was sent home again. The T-shirt dispute asked the Supreme Court to decide whether school officials may limit the free expression of some students to protect others from messages they may see as offensive or hurtful. In March, the court voted to hear a free-speech challenge to laws in California and 21 other states that forbid licensed counselors from using "conversion therapy" with minors. That case, like the one on school T-shirts, arose from appeals by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group. It has already won free-speech rulings that allowed a cake maker and a website designer to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings despite state laws that barred discrimination based on sexual orientation. On April 22, the court sounded ready to rule for religious parents in Montgomery County, Md., who seek the right to have their young elementary children "opt out" of the classroom use of a new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks. The T-shirt case came before the court shortly after President Trump's executive order declaring the U.S. government will "recognize two sexes, male and female," not "an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity." While the Supreme Court has yet to rule on T-shirts and the 1st Amendment, lower courts have upheld limits imposed by schools. In 2006, the 9th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision upheld school officials at Poway High School in San Diego who barred a student from wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality is shameful." The appeals court said students are free to speak on controversial matters, but they are not free to make "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation.' Other courts have ruled schools may prohibit a student from wearing a Confederate flag on a T-shirt. In the new case from Massachusetts, the boy's father said his son's T-shirt message was not "directed at any particular person" but dealt with a "hot political topic." In their defense, school officials pointed to their policy against "bullying" and a dress code that says "clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification." Lawyers for the ADF sued on the student's behalf and argued the school violated his rights under the 1st Amendment. They lost before a federal judge in Boston who ruled for school officials and said the T-shirt "invaded the rights of the other a safe and secure educational environment." The 1st Circuit Court agreed as well, noting that schools may limit free expression of students if they fear a particular message will cause a disruption or "poison the atmosphere" at school. Read more: Supreme Court will hear free-speech challenge to 'conversion therapy' bans in California, Colorado The Supreme Court's most famous ruling on student rights arose during the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Warren Court ruled for high school students who wore black arm bands as a protest. In Tinker vs. Des Moines, the court said students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, [they] must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint." The justices said then a symbolic protest should be permitted so long as it did not cause a "substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities." The attorneys for Liam Morrison contended he should win under that standard. "This case isn't about T-shirts. It's about public school telling a middle-schooler that he isn't allowed to express a view that it differs from their own," said David Cortman, an ADF attorney in the case of L.M vs. Town of Middleborough. 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.
Los Angeles Times
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court denies student's right to wear ‘only two genders' T-shirt at school
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a middle-school student's claim he had a free-speech right to wear a T-shirt stating there are 'only two genders.' Over two dissents, the justices let stand a ruling that said a school may enforce a dress code to protect students from 'hate speech' or bullying. After three months of internal debate, the justices decided they would not take up another conservative, culture war challenge to progressive policies that protect LGBTQ+ youth. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed a 14-page dissent joined only by Justice Clarence Thomas. He said the case 'presented an issue of great importance for our nation's youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech because it expresses a viewpoint the schools disfavor.' Liam Morrison, a 7th grader from Massachusetts, said he was responding to his school's promotion of Pride Month when students were encouraged to wear rainbow colors and posters urged them to 'rise up to protect trans and gender non-confirming students.' Two years ago, he went to school wearing a black T-shirt that said 'There are only two genders.' A teacher reported him to the principal who sent him home to change his shirt. A few weeks later, he returned with the word 'censored' taped over the words 'two genders' but was sent home again. The T-shirt dispute asked the Supreme Court to decide whether school officials may limit the free expression of some students to protect others from messages they may see as offensive or hurtful. In March, the court voted to hear a free-speech challenge to laws in California and 21 other states that forbid licensed counselors from using 'conversion therapy' with minors. That case, like the one on school T-shirts, arose from appeals by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group. It has already won free-speech rulings that allowed a cake maker and a website designer to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings despite state laws that barred discrimination based on sexual orientation. On April 22, the court sounded ready to rule for religious parents in Montgomery County, Md., who seek the right to have their young elementary children 'opt out' of the classroom use of a new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks. The T-shirt case came before the court shortly after President Trump's executive order declaring the U.S. government will 'recognize two sexes, male and female,' not 'an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity.' While the Supreme Court has yet to rule on T-shirts and the 1st Amendment, lower courts have upheld limits imposed by schools. In 2006, the 9th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision upheld school officials at Poway High School in San Diego who barred a student from wearing a T-shirt that said 'Homosexuality is shameful.' The appeals court said students are free to speak on controversial matters, but they are not free to make 'derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation.' Other courts have ruled schools may prohibit a student from wearing a Confederate flag on a T-shirt. In the new case from Massachusetts, the boy's father said his son's T-shirt message was not 'directed at any particular person' but dealt with a 'hot political topic.' In their defense, school officials pointed to their policy against 'bullying' and a dress code that says 'clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification.' Lawyers for the ADF sued on the student's behalf and argued the school violated his rights under the 1st Amendment. They lost before a federal judge in Boston who ruled for school officials and said the T-shirt 'invaded the rights of the other a safe and secure educational environment.' The 1st Circuit Court agreed as well, noting that schools may limit free expression of students if they fear a particular message will cause a disruption or 'poison the atmosphere' at school. The Supreme Court's most famous ruling on student rights arose during the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Warren Court ruled for high school students who wore black arm bands as a protest. In Tinker vs. Des Moines, the court said students do not 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, [they] must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.' The justices said then a symbolic protest should be permitted so long as it did not cause a 'substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.' The attorneys for Liam Morrison contended he should win under that standard. 'This case isn't about T-shirts. It's about public school telling a middle-schooler that he isn't allowed to express a view that it differs from their own,' said David Cortman, an ADF attorney in the case of L.M vs. Town of Middleborough.
Daily Mail
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Trump trashes the Kennedy Center at dinner with new board members: 'It's the last time I'll take a job without looking at it'
President Donald Trump trashed the Kennedy Center in Washington during a White House dinner Monday night with his handpicked board members. The president claimed that the performing arts center was in a sad state of disrepair and then went on a tear about some of the previous 'DEI' programming. In early February, Trump fired the board of trustees at the Kennedy Center and named himself chair, choosing Richard Grenell, his former acting director of national intelligence, to serve as the Kennedy Center's executive director. Giving remarks Monday evening in the State Dining Room, Trump admitted that when he took the Kennedy Center under his purview, 'I hadn't been there.' 'It's the last time I'll take a job without looking at it,' the president cracked. What particularly irked Trump wasn't the original structure - built between 1966 and 1971 and opened that year - but the arts center's new backyard addition, The Reach. 'I always thought they should have built a beautiful performing center, open air, facing out over the Potomac. They didn't do that. They built these crazy rooms underneath. They built three tiny little stages. Very expensive,' Trump said. 'Someday maybe somebody will occupy one,' he said. Trump said when he originally looked at one of the entryways to the Kennedy Center's modern addition, he got very confused. 'They're underground,' he explained. 'In fact, when I looked from a distance, you know, you see these hubs, concrete hubs, and I thought it was modern art. Here we go with the modern art blocking everybody's view.' 'And when I actually went over there, I said, no it wasn't modern art, it was meant to be a door so you go down to these rooms,' he continued. 'So I don't now what the hell they were doing but they spent a lot of money and it's just not possible that they could have spent it so poorly,' the president complained. He was he was going to 'turn it around.' 'I love turning things around,' Trump said. 'I'm doing that with the country, believe me, we're doing it.' The president also complained that the Kennedy Center had LGBTQ-inclusive programming. Kennedy Center events for the upcoming World Pride celebration in June have already been scrapped. 'In addition the programming was out of control, with rampant political propaganda, DEI and inappropriate shows,' Trump said. 'We had some very inappropriate shows to put it, I think, to put it very nicely.' 'They had dance parties for quote "queer and trans youth." And I guess that's all right for certain people, quote, and I'm just quoting, I'm not saying it "queer and trans youth." That wasn't working out too well,' Trump insisted. 'They had a Marxist anti-police performance and they had lesbian-only Shakespeare, which is never - who thinks of these ideas, really?' Trump asked. 'It's different.' 'We're bringing our country back so fast,' he added. Ahead of the Monday night dinner, the Kennedy Center announced that its upcoming lineup would include Chicago, Moulin Rouge and Back to the Future: The Musical. Trump suggested Phantom of the Opera would also be added to the line-up. 'So we're signing Phantom of the Opera. We're signing a lot of great Broadway. We'll have them run for awhile,' he said. 'I think you're going to do very well but it's been negelcted very badly, and it nees an infusion of different things, probably funds,' he continued. 'But I think we're going to do very well when you get some money from Congress to fix it.' Another view of The Reach addition to the Kennedy Center, which President Donald Trump complained about during his Monday night dinner with his new board of trustees. The original Kennedy Center building can be seen sticking out in the background Seated in the audience were White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, who Trump appointed to the board. Trump said hello to Steve Wynn, the casino magnate, whose wife Andrea was appointed to the board, and Robert Kraft, the New England Patriots owner whose wife Dana Blumberg, is also among the new faces. The president also appointed Fox News host Laura Ingraham to the board, as well as second lady Usha Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Paolo Zampolli, the modeling agent who discovered first lady Melania Trump in the 1990s. Singer Lee Greenwood, who appeared last week in Qatar with Trump to sing to the troops, is also a member of the Kennedy Center board.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Your guide to Supreme Court decision season
Welcome to Supreme Court decision season. Thursday marks the start of a roughly six-week sprint for the justices to finish their work by the end of June so they can head out for the summer recess. We've got you covered with everything you need to know. We have yet to receive decisions in 37 argued cases, a bit more than half of the court's caseload this term. Dominating this year's term are decisions that will bring the justices deep into the culture wars. There are three cases before the justices where religion is a through line: In , the justices are tasked with deciding whether Oklahoma officials can approve the nation's first publicly funded charter school, paving the way for a major decision regarding the role of religion in state-funded education. The court must decide whether Wisconsin can deny a religious tax exemption to a social services arm of Catholic dioceses nationwide that was denied relief by the state and lower courts because it isn't 'operated primarily for religious purposes,' in — a decision that could drastically alter eligibility for such exemptions. And in , the justices must determine whether Montgomery County, Md., is violating the First Amendment by failing to provide parents an opt-out option from LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary schools. Their ruling could expand the religious rights of parents. Three other culture war-esque themes are dominating decision season this year: transgender rights, access to pornography and environmental protections. The justices agreed to decide whether Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors is constitutional in , and they'll determine what level of constitutional scrutiny applies to Texas's age-verification law for porn websites in Five environmental cases remain, with questions spanning venue ( and ) and standing () to where used nuclear fuel can be stored () and whether agencies must study environmental impacts beyond the immediate effects of the action over which they have regulatory authority (). All that, on top of the court's bloated emergency docket (see: last week's newsletter), has set up a busy few weeks for the justices. Beyond Thursday, the court has not yet officially announced any opinion days. But if they stick to the same schedule as in years past, here's what you can expect: Opinions every Thursday until the end of June (except for Juneteenth, when the court is closed). At the start of June, the court will add a second day each week. In mid-June, the court will add a third day each week. The justices try to finish up by June 30, which this year falls on a Monday. But as we saw last term, when the court handed down its presidential immunity decision on July 1, it doesn't always happen. Each opinion day, a buzzer will ring in the Supreme Court at exactly 10 a.m. EDT. The justices take the bench as Marshal Gail Curley famously cries out, 'Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!' Immediately after taking their seats, Chief Justice John Roberts announces the justice who has the first opinion of the day and in what case. Opinions are announced in reverse seniority based on the majority opinion's author. So, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will always go first when she has an opinion, and Roberts goes last. The author proceeds to read an oral summary of their opinion (for an example, click here to listen to the court's presidential immunity announcement) as court staff hand out written copies to reporters assembled in the press room. That's where we'll be, every opinion day. Onward! Welcome to , The Hill's weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Click above to email us tips, or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48). Not already on the list? One nation, under injunction Thursday is shaping up to be a lively morning at the Supreme Court, and not only because it's an opinion day. After the decisions are handed down, the justices will proceed to hear oral arguments on the Trump administration's emergency bid to enforce the president's birthright citizenship executive order in some parts of the country. Trump issued the order on his first day in office, restricting birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to parents without legal status. The case tees up a major battle over the conventional understanding of the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee backed by even some conservative legal scholars. We published a story last weekend diving into that dynamic, but the constitutionality of Trump's order isn't expected to be the focus of Thursday's arguments. Instead, Solicitor General D. John Sauer is set to argue that federal district judges overstepped their authority when they found Trump's order is likely illegal by blocking the policy nationwide, rather than merely against the parties suing in court. The Supreme Court's decision is poised to have ripple effects not only for the birthright citizenship battle, but also for the dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration where plaintiffs have pushed for such broad rulings. Sauer in a recent court filing called the situation 'intolerable,' noting that more nationwide injunctions have already been issued in Trump's second term than during the entirety of former President Biden's tenure. 'Those injunctions thwart the Executive Branch's crucial policies on matters ranging from border security, to international relations, to national security, to military readiness,' Sauer wrote. 'They repeatedly disrupt the operations of the Executive Branch up to the Cabinet level.' Nationwide injunctions have seen a sharp rise in recent years, and have been met with skepticism from some of the Supreme Court's conservatives. But the justices have yet to definitively curb the practice, despite two invitations to do so from the Biden administration in its final months. 'Universal relief is irreconcilable with those principles. Universal relief also creates other legal and practical problems,' Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden-era solicitor general, wrote in a December court filing urging the justices to take up the issue. The court refused to do so, however. But now the question becomes, will the recent prolificity of nationwide injunctions now spur the justices to intervene? Split-screen of officials charged over ICE conflicts Two sitting officials accused of interfering with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are due in court Thursday for initial hearings, creating a split-screen of escalating consequences tied to Trump's immigration agenda. A Wisconsin judge and New Jersey mayor were both arrested after run-ins with ICE, aggressive moves by the administration on immigration enforcement that sparked fears of government overreach. Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested last month amid an investigation into whether she attempted to help a noncitizen avoid arrest after he appeared in her courtroom. In court filings, prosecutors said she guided Mexican immigrant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a side door after learning ICE officials planned to arrest him after his hearing in her court. She's charged with obstruction and concealing an individual to prevent their arrest. The Wisconsin Supreme Court temporarily suspended her from the bench days after her arrest. Weeks later, Newark, N.J., Mayor Ras Baraka, who is also running in the Democratic primary for governor, was detained after refusing to vacate an ICE detention center. Alina Habba, who is interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey and previously served as a personal lawyer for Trump, announced the arrest on X, suggesting Baraka 'committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself' from the ICE facility. 'He has willingly chosen to disregard the law,' Habba wrote, adding that 'no one is above the law.' The escalation in immigration enforcement comes as Trump has made cracking down on border control a key issue of his second term. The Trump administration has taken aim at international students who supported pro-Palestinian demonstrations or had minor criminal records, in addition to alleged gang members. It has also sought to narrow birthright citizenship. The clamp-down efforts have sparked dozens of legal challenges, which only continue to mount. Thursday's hearings will provide a taste of the government's disposition toward each defendant. Dugan is expected to enter a plea, while a status conference will commence in Baraka's case. The government has asked the judge in Baraka's case to quickly move to schedule a trial. Justices wade into Trump, in their own way During the Supreme Court's two-week recess, the justices have increasingly waded into the president's attacks on the courts at a string of recent public appearances. But each justice is striking a different tone. The justices' varying responses add another dimension to how the court has struggled to speak with one voice in matters concerning Trump's administration. Many of the court's emergency decisions on Trump policies have been deeply divided so far, including several 5-4 rulings. Some of the strongest public pushback came from Jackson, the most junior justice and a member of the court's liberal wing, during a speech at a judicial conference in Puerto Rico. Jackson did not name Trump, but addressing what she called 'the elephant in the room,' she focused her remarks on recent attacks on judges based on their rulings. 'Attacks on judicial independence are how countries that are not free, not fair, and not rule-of-law-oriented operate,' Jackson said. Last Thursday, she echoed those sentiments in Kansas City, where the justice accepted an award named after former President Truman. 'For our democracy to function properly, and for the protection of the rights and liberties that all of us have in this country, judges must be allowed to reach their conclusions without 'inappropriate pressure,'' Jackson said. It's not just Jackson. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the most senior member of the court's liberal minority, also appeared to address recent attacks at a Thursday appearance at an American Bar Association event. 'Our job is to stand up for people who can't do it themselves. And our job is to be the champion of lost causes,' Sotomayor told the crowd of gathered lawyers. 'But right now, we can't lose the battles we are facing. And we need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight,' she added. The justices' remarks follow months of attacks on the judiciary from Trump, who has insisted that the courts should not be allowed to curtail his executive power. Though Trump has targeted specific judges or rulings against his agenda, his criticism of the high court has been sparing. Roberts, however, didn't appear eager to engage on the subject when it came up at a fireside chat in Buffalo last week. When prompted by U.S. District Judge Lawrence Vilardo to discuss recent calls for impeaching judges, Roberts declined to go any further than his previous written statement rebuking Trump. 'I've already spoken to that, and impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions,' Roberts tersely responded. The Supreme Court will keep meeting for its weekly conferences during decision season. This week, the justices are set to consider 150 petitions to take up cases. Among those are seven relists, all of which we've covered in past editions of The Gavel. We want to flag an update on one of those: the dispute over Flat Oak, the sacred Apache site that was set to be converted into a copper mine. For months, the justices have stalled on a petition seeking to block the federal government from transferring the property on religious grounds, Apache Stronghold v. United States. It's up for its 15th conference this week. As we outlined last month, the U.S. Forest Service has been taking steps to move things along, enabling the land to be transferred to the mining company as soon as June 16. U.S. District Judge Steven Logan, who oversees the case in a lower court and sided with the government, is taking note of the case being relisted over and over. On Friday, Logan halted the plans until the Supreme Court decides what to do. 'Of course, this Court does not have a crystal ball to determine what the Supreme Court will, let alone should, decide,' wrote Logan, an appointee of former President Obama. But the judge noted 'there is good reason to anticipate that it will grant certiorari, given the fact that the case has been relisted thirteen times for consideration.' Dr. Wendsler Nosie Sr., the leader of Apache Stronghold, said in a statement, 'We are grateful the judge stopped this land grab in its tracks so that the Supreme Court has time to protect Oak Flat from destruction.' E. Jean Carroll, the writer who sued Trump for defamation, revealed in her newsletter Friday that one of her lawyers is currently clerking for Sotomayor. U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks, a former President Clinton appointee who serves in Florida, was not happy to learn about the exodus of attorneys from the Justice Department's civil rights division. Fix The Court, a watchdog that pushes for stronger ethics and transparency rules in the judiciary, sent a letter to every lawmaker on Capitol Hill calling for a supplemental spending bill to increase funding for the U.S. Marshals to protect judges in the wake of recent threats. The letter reads in part, 'A supplemental of, say, $50 million, would provide critical protection to judicial officers at a time of great need.' Todd Blanche, Trump's deputy attorney general who served as his top criminal defense attorney in last year's hush money trial, is now the acting librarian of Congress after Trump fired Carla Hayden from the post last week. Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now: Today: A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a summary judgment hearing in the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) and its board members' challenge to DOGE's takeover of the institute. A Washington D.C., federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to Trump's executive order directing a review of all grants supporting undocumented migrants and pausing the grants pending that review. The same judge is set to hold a temporary restraining order hearing in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's challenge to Trump firing three of the group's board members. Thursday:The justices will hear oral arguments over the scope of an injunction blocking Trump's executive order narrowing birthright citizenship. Baraka, the Newark, N.J., mayor who was arrested during a confrontation with ICE agents, is scheduled to appear for a status conference. Dugan, the Wisconsin judge who is accused of obstructing justice after sending a migrant out of her courtroom while federal agents waited to arrest him, is set to be arraigned. A federal judge in Maryland is set to hold a motions hearing in a challenge to the Trump administration efforts to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Afghanistan and Cameroon. Friday: A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in the National Academy of Education and National Council on Measurement in Education's lawsuit challenging the dismantling of the Education Department's Institute of Education Sciences. A Maryland federal judge is scheduled to hold a hearing regarding discovery and privilege in Kilmar Abrego Garcia's challenge to his removal. A D.C. federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in the Signalgate case. Monday: The Supreme Court will announce orders. A federal appeals court panel in Washington, D.C., will hear oral arguments in the Trump administration's appeal of a judge's order blocking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from clawing back billions of dollars in Biden-era climate grants. A federal judge in South Carolina will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on nonprofits and cities' request to block the administration from freezing various environmental grants under the Inflation Reduction Act and the federal infrastructure law. A federal judge in Maryland is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Trump administration's funding cuts to AmeriCorps, brought by D.C. and 22 states, as well as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D). A federal judge in D.C. is scheduled to hold an evidentiary hearing in a lawsuit challenging the closure of three Department of Homeland Security offices dedicated to protecting individual rights. Tuesday: A federal judge in New York is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a Columbia student's challenge to ICE's attempt to find and deport her, after participating in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a summary judgment hearing in a challenge brought by two FTC appointees over their firings. A D.C. federal judge is scheduled to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Education Department's efforts to obstruct Office of Civil Rights investigations. A federal judge in Rhode Island is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Department of Health and Human Services's directive for a RIF and reorganization, brought by 20 Democratic attorneys general. What we're reading Concord Monitor's Charlotte Matherly: ''It was all about people': New Hampshire remembers down-to-earth 'humanity' of David Souter, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice' Courthouse News's Benjamin Weiss: Judiciary officials cite threats against judges as they make case to Congress for more security funding The Volokh Conspiracy's Eugene Volokh: Claim Can Go Forward Against American Publisher That Allegedly Knew Knew Author It Paid Was Hamas Hostage-Holder The Associated Press's Sara Cline: A split jury and a lie sent him to prison. Now he's working to change Louisiana's law BBC's Vanessa Buschschlüter: Crates full of Nazi documents found in Argentine court's basement Questions? Tips? Love letters, hate mail, pet pics? Email us: elee@ and zschonfeld@ On Signal: @elee.03 and @zachschonfeld.48 Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
