Latest news with #LGBTQ-themed
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Big brands are staying quiet this Pride Month
For the last several years, Pride Month was a splashy marketing event for big brands. Stores adorned windows with rainbow flags, displayed LGBTQ-themed t-shirts and coffee mugs at their entrances, changed their logos on social media accounts, and spotlighted donations to LGBTQ rights groups. But this Pride Month, many retail chains and brands are going quiet. Companies are treading lightly, avoiding prominent campaigns and visible public support. Thirty-nine percent say they plan to scale back public Pride Month engagements this year, according to a survey of more than 200 corporate executives by Gravity Research, a risk management advisory. That includes sponsoring Pride events, posting supportive messages of LGBTQ rights on social media and selling Pride-themed merchandise. Consumer brands are wary of provoking right-wing customers and activists, and they fear reprisals from President Donald Trump's administration. Federal agencies have threatened to investigate companies with diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Many businesses are tightening their advertising spending due to economic uncertainty over Trump's tariffs. But businesses cited pressure from the Trump administration as the primary reason for changing their Pride Month approach, according to the survey. 'It's clear that the administration and their supporters are driving the change,' said Luke Hartig, the president of Gravity Research. 'Companies are under increasing pressure not to engage and speak out on issues.' The subdued approach marks a shift for businesses, which used to turn the annual June celebration of LGBTQ Americans into a branded holiday. It's part of a broader pivot in corporate America, with many businesses scrapping some of their programs to advance diversity in the workplace under pressure from the Trump administration and Republican activists. Advocates for gay, lesbian and transgender Americans say the Trump administration's opposition makes it harder for businesses to compete, innovate and attract talent. They also warn that companies risk losing business by downplaying support for their growing number of gay, lesbian and transgender customers and workers. The proportion of American adults who identify as LGBTQ has risen to 9.3% of the population. 'By weaponizing federal agencies like the EEOC and the Justice Department to intimidate companies that support LGBTQ+ inclusion, this administration is creating an anti-business, anti-worker atmosphere,' said Eric Bloem, the vice president of corporate citizenship at the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. Many businesses have stopped participating in the Human Rights Campaign's scorecard on corporate policies and benefits for LGBTQ employees due to backlash. 'Companies that show up only when it's convenient, or backtrack the moment there's political pressure, risk losing trust and credibility,' Bloem said. Companies are actively preparing for Pride-related backlash this year from conservative activists and consumers. Sixty-five percent of companies in Gravity Research's survey said they were preparing strategies to respond to blowback. A growing number of chains, including Walmart, Target, Kroger, have also been warning investors about the risks of consumer boycotts over corporate positions on social issues. Anger from the right over Bud Light and Target's marketing efforts, in particular, has had a chilling effect on corporate strategies for Pride Month. Bud Light sales tanked in 2023 after the company's partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney sparked anti-trans backlash and boycotts. Bud Light's tepid response also angered LGBTQ rights advocates. In 2023, activists and customers on the right attacked Target on social media for its LGBTQ-themed merchandise during Pride Month. Target employees faced threats over items such as bathing suits designed for transgender people, and the company removed them from stores. Misinformation spread on social media that the swimsuits were marketed to children, which they were not. The backlash led to a drop in sales and lawsuits from Republican-aligned legal groups. Last year, Target sold Pride products in fewer stores and offered the full merchandise collection online. Target is again taking a muted approach to Pride Month this year. In 'select stores,' Target is selling a 'multi-category collection including home, pets, books, vinyl and adult apparel and accessories' to celebrate Pride, the company said in an email to employees viewed by CNN. Target is selling the full Pride product selection online. 'We are absolutely dedicated to fostering inclusivity for everyone – our team members, our guests, our supply partners, and the more than 2,000 communities we're proud to serve,' a Target spokesperson said. 'As we have for many years, we will continue to mark Pride Month by offering an assortment of celebratory products, hosting internal programming to support our incredible team and sponsoring local events in neighborhoods across the country.' But Target's Pride merchandise is limited and displayed less prominently in stores than in previous years, said one Target senior leader who spoke under the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. Target store employee and customer excitement for Pride Month has dissipated as a result of the company's shift, according to the senior leader. 'It feels like we have catered to the direction of the administration,' this person said. Other companies are also dialing back public pronouncements, donations and merchandise in support of Pride Month. Last year, Kohl's launched a 'Pride capsule collection' of merchandise and donated $100,000 to The Trevor Project, a suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ youth. 'As we use this month to embrace love in all forms, we simultaneously create more spaces for members of the LGBTQIA+ community to live out loud,' Michelle Banks, Kohl's-then chief diversity, equity & inclusion officer, said in a news release. (Banks is now Kohl's chief inclusion and belonging officer.) Kohl's has not announced any Pride Month plans this year and did not respond to CNN's requests for comment. Macy's last year touted that it hosted a donation campaign for The Trevor Project, spotlighted LGBTQ-owned brands, and set up displays in select Macy's windows and at local Pride marches nationwide. Macy's is supporting Pride events this month in a similar way, including participating in Pride events nationwide and raising money for The Trevor Project. But unlike previous years, the company is not making official announcements about its plans. Nordstrom, Gap and several other brands that highlighted their Pride Month efforts last year appear not to have repeated them this June. The companies did not respond to CNN about their plans. But a quieter marketing approach to Pride Month does not necessarily mean companies are abandoning support for LGBTQ employees or customers. 'I do see there's pivoting happening (for Pride Month). What I don't see is corporates walking away from the LGBTQ community,' said Sarah Kate Ellis, president of advocacy group GLAAD. 'They don't want to be caught in the crosshairs of this presidency, and they don't want to become the headline like Target or Bud Light.' Many companies are instead working behind the scenes to engage their LGBTQ employees and strengthen employee recruitment and retention strategies. Just 14% of companies reported plans to reduce internal engagement during Pride Month, according to Gravity Research. Corporate employees are providing counter-pressure to keep brands active on LGBTQ issues. 'Companies are going deeper and wider, rather than supporting an event,' Ellis said. 'They're finding better ways to thread their work supporting the LGBTQ community into their organizations.' Sign in to access your portfolio
Rakyat Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- Rakyat Post
Minister Of Religious Affairs Responds To LGBTQ Programme Scheduled For Next Month
Subscribe to our FREE A recent Twitter post promoting an LGBTQ-themed event has sparked public debate and caught the attention of the Minister of Religious Affairs. The event, titled 'Pride Care: Queer Stories & Sexual Health Awareness,' is organized by a group known as Pemuda Sosialis. Scheduled to take place on 21 June 2025 in Petaling Jaya, the programme is being held in conjunction with Pride Month and is expected to accept a limited number of participants. Among the activities planned is a presentation on sexual health awareness. LGBTQ is an acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer—terms that refer to individuals whose sexual orientation or gender identity differs from the heterosexual and cisgender norm. Pride Month is an annual celebration held globally to honour the LGBTQ community and advocate for their rights. However, in Malaysia—a country where Islam is the official religion—the question arises: Is such an event acceptable? The answer from the authorities remains a firm no. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department for Religious Affairs, Datuk Dr. Mohd Na'im Mokhtar, addressed the issue in a He expressed strong concern over the event, describing it as an attempt to normalise LGBTQ lifestyles, which he said are in conflict with Malaysia's core values, religious beliefs, and legal framework. 'I view this matter seriously,' he stated. 'I stress that the Malaysian government rejects efforts to normalise LGBTQ culture, whether done openly or subtly.' Dr. Mohd Na'im emphasized that Malaysia's position is rooted in the Federal Constitution, national laws, and policies that uphold Islamic principles and traditional Eastern values. He added that such programmes—even if held in private—are seen as a direct challenge to the norms and religious values upheld by the majority of Malaysians. In response, the minister urged the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) and other relevant authorities to investigate the organisers and take appropriate legal action if any laws have been broken. He also called on the organisers to immediately cease all activities that contravene the law and moral standards of the country. 'Religious agencies, including the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (JAKIM) and State Islamic Religious Departments, must be ready to carry out enforcement, particularly if Muslims are involved in these programmes,' he added. Concluding his statement, Dr. Mohd Na'im called on all Malaysians to stand together in protecting the social and moral fabric of the nation. He reaffirmed that practices that go against Islamic teachings and societal values will not be accepted or normalised in Malaysia. Share your thoughts with us via TRP's . Get more stories like this to your inbox by signing up for our newsletter.
CNN
5 days ago
- Business
- CNN
Walmart, Target and other companies warn about growing consumer boycotts
Companies are warning investors about the risks of becoming the next target of angry customers. Corporate America is required to disclose risks to their businesses in their annual regulatory filings. This year, Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Corona-parent Constellation Brands join an increasing number of companies advising investors about customer and legal backlash to their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies and environmental, social and governance (ESG) initiatives. They're also giving notice of the risks of rolling back these programs. Businesses typically warn shareholders about economic downturns, data breaches, natural disasters, and tax code changes. But companies are adding new risk disclosures in response to the intense political divide over corporate efforts to increase diversity in the workplace, promote LGBTQ rights and slow down climate change, corporate governance and risk management researchers say. 'Companies face a Catch-22 situation,' said Kristen Jaconi, director of the Peter Arkley Institute for Risk Management at USC. 'Consumers may be dissatisfied if a company takes a particular position on a social issue or if a company takes no position at all.' Consumer brands are trying to avoid damaging boycotts like those against Bud Light, Tesla, and Target. They are also reacting to opposition to DEI on the right, including the Trump administration's threats to investigate companies with 'illegal' DEI programs, conservative lawsuits and activist shareholder proposals against companies, and right-wing activists like Robby Starbuck targeting companies with DEI programs. 'The heightened debate on DEI and climate, in particular, has driven the inclusion of these disclosures in the last few months,' said Matteo Tonello, the head of benchmarking and analytics at The Conference Board. Many companies are warning about consumer boycotts from both the political right and left, stoked on social media platforms. 'Strong opinions continue to be publicly expressed both for and against diversity, equity and inclusion and ESG initiatives,' Walmart said in its annual report released in March. Walmart, which ended some of its diversity programs earlier this year, said it and other companies' positions are 'subject to heightened scrutiny from consumers, investors, advocacy groups and public figures, potentially leading to consumer boycotts, negative publicity campaigns, litigation and reputational harm.' Target said in its annual report in March that expectations from shareholders, customers and employees over whether it should offer certain products or pursue ESG and DEI goals are varied, and at times conflicting. 'We have previously been unable to meet some of those conflicting expectations, which has led to negative publicity and adversely affected our reputation,' Target said. Target noted backlash to its merchandise selection during Pride Month in 2023. That year, a boycott from the right over some of Target's LGBTQ-themed merchandise led to a drop in sales and lawsuits from Republican-aligned legal groups. Conversely, Target also noted 'adverse reactions from some of our shareholders, guests, team members, and others' over its decision to end some of its diversity programs this year. Target's sales fell last quarter, driven in part by customer backlash to Target's retreat on DEI. Target said any future changes to its policies could result in a negative reaction from some customers. The company also warned that it could face litigation and investigations from states and federal agencies that assert diversity programs violate the law, but said its initiatives were legal. Target is not alone in signaling that the Republican legal assault and right-leaning consumer backlash against diversity policies, in particular, could pose a big risk to business. Abercrombie & Fitch, Kroger, PVH Corp. and other companies warn they could be hurt by the Trump administration's anti-DEI and anti-ESG crackdown. 'There is some indication that sustainability goals are becoming more controversial,' Kroger said in its annual filing last month. 'The recent change to the United States administration and changes in investor perspectives could also affect our ability to pursue our sustainability goals and could lead to increased criticism and associated reputational harm.' PVH, the owner of Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, said in its annual filing last month that it could be 'subjected to negative responses by governmental actors (such as anti-ESG legislation or retaliatory legislative treatment) or customers (such as boycotts or negative publicity campaigns) that could adversely affect our reputation.' It's notable that companies are now anticipating boycotts, said Lawrence Glickman, a historian at Cornell University who studies consumer activism. 'Often, boycotts catch companies by surprise,' he said. 'Recent boycotts have been successful enough that (companies) are worried about them.'
The Star
21-05-2025
- Business
- The Star
U.S. Target's sales dented by DEI boycott
NEW YORK, May 21 (Xinhua) -- U.S. retail company Target has said a laundry list of problems dragged down its quarterly sales, including a boycott by shoppers who disagreed with its decision this year to end some diversity programs. "Target's sales have been tepid for years. In the three months ended May 3, they got even worse, with comparable sales falling 3.8 percent, a steeper drop than analysts expected," reported The Wall Street Journal. The company on Wednesday lowered its financial forecast for the fiscal year, citing uncertainty around tariffs, the economy and consumer demand. "We're not satisfied with these results," Target Chief Executive Brian Cornell said on a call with reporters. Target's quarterly sales fell in part because of softer spending on discretionary items -- things that people want, but don't need -- and a broad decline in consumer confidence, Cornell said. Target once was among the most outspoken corporate supporters of Black and LGBTQ rights. But in January the retailer ended its workforce and supplier diversity programs, after paring back its LGBTQ-themed merchandise in 2023.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Jackson most vocal member on Supreme Court bench: analysis
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson may be the Supreme Court's most junior member, but on the bench, she's the most vocal. Jackson, who was nominated by former President Biden in 2022, has far outpaced her colleagues on speaking time during oral arguments this term. She has said 75,535 words during oral arguments this term, according to The Gavel's review of Supreme Court transcripts, more than 50 percent higher than any of her colleagues. Jackson appeared to take note of the trend earlier this month as she accepted an award, reflecting on her similarities with former President Truman, whom the award was named after. 'Perhaps it is my general outspokenness on and sometimes off the bench. I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom,' Jackson told the crowd gathered in Kansas City, Mo. Jackson has set herself apart in other ways recently too, including notably being the lone liberal justice to publicly dissent over an order this week allowing the Trump administration to strip Venezuelans of protections against deportation. The justice's noticeable loquaciousness comes as the style of oral arguments at the high court has significantly changed since the pandemic. After the normal free-for-all questioning round, each justice now gets uninterrupted time to ask questions to the attorneys. Cases almost always extend past the official one-hour allotment. And some arguments become marathon sessions, like last month, when the court went for two-and-a-half hours as it considered requiring Montgomery County, Md., to provide parents an opt-out option from LGBTQ-themed books in elementary schools. Three justices — Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett and Jackson — were more vocal in those arguments than any other this term, helping that case become the one to draw the most chatter among the justices. Ketanji Brown Jackson: 75,535 Sonia Sotomayor: 49,448 Elena Kagan: 48,188 Neil Gorsuch: 43,035 Brett Kavanaugh: 33,221 Samuel Alito: 32,446 Amy Coney Barrett: 30,432 John Roberts: 20,493 Clarence Thomas: 10,904 Justices sometimes decline to speak during cases. For example, Barrett didn't speak during eight arguments she participated in this term, more than any of her colleagues. Silence can sometimes indicate agreement. In a January argument involving a former Halliburton Energy Services employee's wrongful termination case, neither Barrett, Alito nor Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked a single question. It marked the only case this term in which three justices remained silent. The unanimous opinion landed rapidly, less than two months after the argument. Alito himself authored the decision that allowed the employee's case to move forward. (For the data nerds out there, we've got you covered: Click here to download the full dataset.) Welcome to , The Hill's weekly courts newsletter, we're Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Email us tips (elee@ zschonfeld@ or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) and Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48). Not already on the list? Gupta Wessler has just 11 lawyers and four partners, but that hasn't stopped the boutique law firm from taking on the Trump administration. The firm is spearheading two prominent challenges to President Trump's sweeping assertion of executive power. It represents both Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) fired by Trump, and a worker union fighting back against the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Despite its size, the firm is punching up. 'We like representing the underdog,' founder Deepak Gupta said in an interview with The Gavel. 'That's kind of our specialty.' On Thursday, the firm's two major cases against the Trump administration were argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — just hours apart. Gupta said the unusual split-screen was 'incredibly intense.' In the morning, he urged a three-judge panel to deem Trump's firing of Wilcox unlawful based on both precedent and 'settled and unquestioned historical practice between the branches.' Later that day, Gupta Wessler principal Jennifer Bennett argued that the CFPB would have been 'wiped out' without court intervention and urged the panel to block the agency's dismantling. Gupta said that taking up the two cases was a 'natural extension' of the firm's work. Founded in 2012, Gupta Wessler's focus in 'normal times' was representing consumers and workers, the founder said. Now, the firm is representing government watchdogs meant to protect those classes against action taken by the Trump administration. However, the CFPB fight is personal, Gupta said. He helped set the agency up, working under Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) before she was a senator to launch its amicus program, defend its regulations and assist on Supreme Court cases. 'We couldn't just watch the sidelines as they tried to dismantle it,' he said. Gupta said Wilcox asked Gupta Wessler to represent her. Despite being a 'test case of the administration's own making' aimed at expanding control over independent agencies, Gupta said a challenge to the firing was necessary because otherwise the administration 'will have succeeded.' 'The courts are going to have to settle this matter once and for all,' Gupta said. 'And I hope that the extreme nature of the way that the administration has been conducting itself will actually prompt the courts to hold to these protections, because they're demonstrating how important they are.' Despite its role in the major Trump cases, the firm's focus is usually on Supreme Court, appellate and constitutional litigation. This term alone, the firm had four arguments before the Supreme Court, Gupta said. Wind back a year, and that's seven arguments before the justices in the last two terms — a feat for the small team. He called this one of the 'busiest and most professionally intense periods' for the entire firm. But that's also fostered an 'espirit de corps' among the close-knit team. 'I know everyone feels this way, that it is a privilege to be able to fight back,' Gupta said. 'There are a lot of people that feel helpless right now, and so the fact that we have a law firm, the fact that we're not afraid to stand up to the Trump administration — we're not afraid about what our corporate clients might say, because we don't have any corporate clients — it feels like a real privilege.' A battle is brewing between the government's three branches. Since returning to the White House, President Trump has sought to establish the executive branch as dominant over its legislative and judicial counterparts. The courts have garnered most of his attention. But on Monday, Congress was dragged into the fight. The charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), a sitting lawmaker, over a run-in with immigration agents during an oversight visit to a Newark, N.J., detention center marks an escalation in the executive branch's power struggle. Alina Habba, interim U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, announced Monday her office planned to charge McIver with assaulting law enforcement while at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility this month. The charging papers were made public Tuesday. The criminal complaint against McIver says she 'slammed her forearms' into immigration officers as they attempted to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D), who had joined McIver and two other House Democrats attempting to access the facility. Baraka was previously charged with a misdemeanor count of trespassing, but Habba announced that her office planned to drop it. It comes days after The Hill reported that the Justice Department was considering removing a requirement for U.S. attorneys to take the additional step of consulting with the department's Public Integrity Section when bringing criminal cases against members of Congress. The charge against McIver drew sharp condemnation from Democrats. The Congressional Black Caucus called the count 'nothing short of a cowardly attempt to intimidate members of Congress from holding this administration accountable.' 'To be clear, a member of Congress has the constitutional authority to visit ICE facilities—without an appointment—to conduct oversight,' said Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), who chairs the caucus. Other Democratic lawmakers called the charge a 'disturbing overreach for the Executive Branch,' a 'power grab' and 'straight out of the authoritarian playbook.' Trump said Tuesday that McIver was 'out of control.' Though the arrest marks an early test for Congress in its tug-of-war with the administration, the judiciary has for months been waging its own war with Trump over the separation of powers. The president's onslaught of executive actions has sparked hundreds of lawsuits, many challenging his expansionist view of presidential power. His Justice Department has argued that he possesses sole authority over the executive branch – and that the courts can't do much to stop him. However, dozens of judges from the district courts to the Supreme Court have served as a check on that power. The Supreme Court's emergency order blocking the administration from swiftly deporting a group of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) is poised to spark a wave of litigation over how much due process the migrants are owed. The high court made clear that the migrants must be given a reasonable opportunity to go to court before authorities remove them to a Salvadoran mega prison — and that the administration's existing notice was insufficient. 'Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,' read the court's unsigned opinion released late Friday. But the justices did not provide a solution, instead directing the lower courts to address 'the issue of what notice is due.' It's set to invigorate a battle in the more than dozen cases proceeding across the country. Many cases are brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has pushed for providing notice 30 days before removal. In Pennsylvania, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee, in a ruling last week suggested 21 days was sufficient but acknowledged 'further analysis' was needed. 'The Court knows that individuals in ICE custody are frequently moved, counsel for such individuals may have a difficult time speaking with them, and such individuals cannot realistically file for habeas relief within a matter of hours,' Haines wrote. U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney, an appointee of former President Biden overseeing a case in Colorado, had similarly settled on 21 days until she later ruled that Trump couldn't carry out deportations under the AEA at all. But not all judges are landing on three weeks. In California, U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes, another Biden appointee, said the administration must provide two-weeks' notice before using the AEA to deport Venezuelan national Yostin Sleiker Gutierrez-Contreras. But the shorter window may merely reflect how that case is litigated. Gutierrez-Contreras is not represented by the ACLU, and his lawyers hadn't asked for anything more than two weeks. Ultimately, the issue could resurface at the Supreme Court. 'Lower courts should address AEA cases expeditiously,' the justices stressed in their opinion. Read the full order list here. The court took up no new cases at its recent conference. We're up to eight cases so far for the next term. Five justices' recusals forced the court to decline an appeal brought by Ralph Baker, who alleged author Ta-Nehisi Coates and a group of companies and individuals infringed the copyright of his memoir. Lower courts dismissed the case, Baker v. Coates. Baker, representing himself, asked the Supreme Court to take up his bid to revive it. But with only four justices eligible to consider the case, the court couldn't take action. 'Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. §1, and since the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed,' the court's order reads. Why so many recusals? The justices didn't explain, but it appears that most did so because they have book deals with Penguin Random House. Bertelsmann, the publisher's parent company, is a party in the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has received several million dollars for publishing five books with the company. It also published Neil Gorsuch's 2020 book, Ketanji Brown Jackson's recent autobiography and Amy Coney Barrett's forthcoming autobiography (which will be out Sept. 9). That leaves Samuel Alito, who also recused without offering a reason. Unlike most other justices, Alito owns various individual stocks, leading him to frequently recuse. Alito has issued recusals nearly 30 times this term, roughly three times more than any of his colleagues. The apparent decision to step aside from the case over the publishing deals is a notable shift, one that comes after growing scrutiny over the justices' book income and the court's new code of conduct. Sotomayor previously received criticism for not recusing from several petitions involving Penguin Random House, including one in 2013 and another in 2019. Justice Stephen Breyer, who published several books with the company, had recused from both. The court has added six new relists for its upcoming conference. Here's a quick look at each: Election dispute mootness: In Meadors v. Erie County Board of Elections, a group of New Yorkers who supported an independent candidate in Buffalo's 2021 mayoral election is attempting to revive its challenge to the state's ballot access requirements. Lower courts threw out the suit following the election, finding the dispute was moot. The voters want the Supreme Court to loosen the mootness standard for election disputes so that its case can still proceed, even after voting ends. Fourth Amendment's emergency exception: In 2021, police entered William Trevor Case's Anaconda, Mt., home for a welfare check, shooting and wounding him after seeing a dark object near his waist. A jury found Case guilty of assault on a peace officer, but he argues police's lack of a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. Montana's top court found it was covered by the amendment's exception for emergencies. In Case v. Montana, Case wants the justices to resolve a split among the lower courts as to whether police must have 'probable cause' to believe an emergency is occurring, or some lower level of suspicion. Sentence reductions (x2): Federal law prohibits judges from modifying a prison sentence once it's imposed, except for certain circumstances. Two separate petitions filed by criminal defendants, Fernandez v. United States and Elliott v. United States, ask the justices to widen when defendants can receive reductions for 'extraordinary and compelling reasons.' Habeas deadline: Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost's (R) office has asked the justices to reject a habeas petition that raises claims of ineffective counsel filed by Kayla Ayers, whom a jury convicted of setting fire to her father's house. Normally, defendants have only one year to file their petition, which allows prisoners to challenge the constitutionality of their detention. But a lower court said Ayers met an exception that restarts the clock when a defendant uncovers a previously undiscoverable 'factual predicate.' In Chambers-Smith v. Ayers, Yost's office argues the exception doesn't apply. California's pork law: Two years ago, the court rejected a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge to California's law requiring pork sold in the state meet certain humane standards. The clause prohibits states from passing laws that discriminate against other states in commerce, but the plaintiffs in that case conceded California's law doesn't discriminate. The court rejected their other theories and upheld the law. Now, in Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta, a new group of plaintiffs backed by 23 Republican state attorneys general are advancing such a discrimination claim, hoping the justices will take up their case to strike down California's pork restrictions once and for all. The Supreme Court on Thursday made it easier to bring unreasonable force claims against police in deciding unanimously that courts should examine the 'totality of the circumstances' in deciding whether an officer can be tried for unreasonable force, instead of only the 'moment of the threat.' The Justice Department announced Monday that it secured a guilty plea in a fraud scheme involving a former contractor of a 'USAID-funded program,' a reference to the U.S. Agency for International Development that became an early target of the Trump administration. U.S. District Judge Joshua Wolson is a Simpsons fan. A Texas man is seeking nearly $1 million in damages from Whataburger for allegedly causing an allergic reaction by not removing onions from his fast-food meal, as requested. Sotomayor and Jackson dissented from the Supreme Court's order Monday allowing Indiana to execute Benjamin Ritchie, who was convicted of murdering a police officer but alleged his attorneys had a conflict of interest. Ritchie was pronounced dead early Tuesday morning. 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 preliminary injunction hearing in Open Technology Fund's challenge to the administration's funding freeze. The administration's move came as part of its broader effort to dismantle the U.S. Agency for Global Media. A federal judge in New York is set to hold a motions hearing in 12 Democratic state attorneys general's lawsuit challenging Trump's tariffs. A federal judge in Washington state is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge brought by eight local jurisdictions to the administration's threats to withhold HUD Continuum of Care (CoC) grants and Federal Transit Authority grants unless certain conditions are agreed to. A federal judge in Massachusetts is set to hold a hearing for injunctive relief in a challenge brought by a Guatemalan man deported to Mexico. A trial is scheduled to begin in League of United Latin American Citizens' challenge to the 2021 redistricting of congressional and state legislative districts in North Texas, which claims that racially discriminatory districts were drawn. A magistrate judge will hold a virtual hearing on the Trump administration's request to dismiss the misdemeanor charge levied against Newark's Democratic mayor over the recent ICE facility clash. Thursday: The Supreme Court will announce opinions. Mahmoud Khalil, the former Columbia University student who has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is due in immigration court in Louisiana. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to Trump's Jan. 20 order regarding the death penalty, brought by 21 death row inmates whose sentences were commuted by President Biden. Another D.C. judge is set to hold a hearing in three transgender inmates' lawsuit over the Trump administration ending their access to gender-affirming care in prison. A federal judge in Massachusetts is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health for terminating various grants over concerns they promote DEI. A California federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to Trump's ability to conduct reductions-in-force at agencies across the federal government. Another federal judge in California is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to two Trump executive orders that are anti-DEI. Friday: An update on discovery in Kilmar Abrego Garcia's case is due. Monday: The courts are closed for Memorial Day. Tuesday: The Supreme Court will announce orders. A federal judge in California is set to hold a hearing considering whether to transfer a lawsuit over Trump's tariffs, brought by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and the state, to the U.S. Court of International Trade. A federal judge in Massachusetts is set to hold a class certification hearing in an ACLU-backed challenge by seven transgender and nonbinary individuals to Trump's order preventing people from updating the sex marker on their passports. A federal judge in Washington state is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Transportation Security Administration's termination of its 2024 collective bargaining agreement that covers roughly 47,000 TSA workers. The New York Times's Glenn Thrush and Charlie Savage: Bove, Top Justice Dept. Official, Is Considered for Circuit Court Nomination The Economist's Steven Mazie: Three paths the Supreme Court could take on birthright citizenship Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller's 'Excess of Democracy': Federal judges are retiring at a recent-record slow pace in 2025 The New York Times's Elizabeth Williamson: The Website Where Lawyers Mock 'Yellow-Bellied' Firms Bowing to Trump New York Post's Zoe Hussain: 'Tiger King' Joe Exotic's husband deported to Mexico after being detained by ICE We'll be back next Wednesday with additional reporting and insights. In the meantime, keep up with our coverage here. Questions? Tips? Love letters, hate mail, pet pics? Email us: elee@ and zschonfeld@ On Signal: @elee.03 and @zachschonfeld.48. See you next week! Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
