Latest news with #Notice
Eater
2 hours ago
- Business
- Eater
The Biggest Restaurant Openings Around Philly, July 2025
is the deputy editor of Eater's Northeast region, covering Boston, Philly, D.C. and New York. Based in Boston, she has spent years covering the local restaurant industry. Welcome to Eater Philly's guide to the notable restaurants, bars, and cafes that opened around the city in July 2025, from a coffee shop and cafe by the acclaimed Down North team to all-you-can-eat Korean barbecue and hot pot at the King of Prussia mall. If there's an opening in your neighborhood that we've missed, let us know at philly@ Out West, a daytime coffee shop and cafe from Muhammad Abdul-Hadi of the acclaimed Down North pizzeria, is now open in West Philly. Much like the pizzeria, which exclusively hires formerly incarcerated individuals, Out West also has a mission-driven mindset and is focused on second-chance hiring. 5127 Walnut Street Gather 'round at the new Italian Family Pizza in Center City for 24-inch pizzas and meatballs made using recipes from owner Steven Calozzi's grandmother, according to the Inquirer. 1701 Ben Franklin Parkway KPOT, an international chain of restaurants featuring all-you-can-eat Korean barbecue and hot pot, has opened an outpost at the King of Prussia mall. 160 North Gulph Road Mana Modern Chinese, an upscale Chinese BYOB spot from restaurateur Tom Lau (Aki Nom Nom, Feng Hot Pot), is now open in Northern Liberties, the Inquirer reports. 719 North Second Street Cafe chain Toastique, which, as the name suggests, is a place to go for fancy toasts piled high with avocado, smoked salmon, tomato, burrata, and more, has opened an outpost in Newtown Square. 108 Squire Drive In Bella Vista, local vodka soda company Two Robbers Spirits Co. has debuted the Lodge, a restaurant and cocktail bar that highlights those vodka sodas, plus martinis, and other cocktails to go along with pub fare like burgers and fish and chips. 738 South 11th Street Feast on plump khinkali, cheesy khachapuri, and more at Kinto, a fancy new Georgian restaurant now open in Fishtown. 1144 Frankford Avenue Eater Philly All your essential food and restaurant intel delivered to you Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Vox
13 hours ago
- Business
- Vox
The lawsuit seeking to kill Trump's tariffs is back
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Three very important tariff-related stories loom over the US economy this month. The first is that, after a few weeks of relative quiet, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to raise tariffs on a whole raft of other nations. According to the New York Times, 'Trump has threatened 25 trading partners with punishing levies on Aug. 1,' including major importers to the United States such as Mexico, Japan, and the European Union. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. During Trump's brief time back in office, he raised the average effective tariff rate — the average of what all countries must pay to import goods into the US — from 2.5 percent to 16.6 percent, increasing US tariffs nearly sevenfold. If Trump's new tariffs take effect — an uncertain proposition, because Trump's trade policy has been so erratic — the average tariff rate will rise to 20.6 percent. That's the highest rate since 1910. The second story is that, after a brief period when the stock market and the broader US economy seemed to stabilize, inflation rose in June from 2.4 percent to 2.7 percent. Beforehand, US inflation had declined fairly steadily since 2022, when it spiked due to the aftereffects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Products that are particularly exposed to the tariffs, such as furniture and appliances, saw the highest price hikes in June. The delay between Trump's decision to impose high import taxes in the spring, and the onset of induced inflation in June, was widely predicted. After Trump's election, many US companies went on a buying spree, overstocking their inventories with foreign goods in anticipation of Trump's trade war. But those expanded inventories are now starting to run out, and inflation is expected to keep rising. Both of these stories, moreover, are hitting at a terrible time for Trump — at least if he wants his trade war to continue. On July 31, one day before the new round of tariffs are supposed to take effect, a federal appeals court will hear oral arguments on whether Trump's tariffs are illegal and should be struck down. The judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in other words, will hear these arguments while they are surrounded with headlines about an escalating trade war and the harm it is imposing on the US economy. The plaintiffs' legal arguments in this case, known as V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, are quite strong. So strong, in fact, that a bipartisan panel of three judges struck down the tariffs in May — that decision is currently on hold while the Federal Circuit considers the case. The Federal Circuit's hearing is largely an exhibition game before this case reaches the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the fate of the tariffs will almost certainly be decided by the justices, with their Republican supermajority that has thus far shown extraordinary loyalty to Trump. But that doesn't mean that the Federal Circuit's decision is irrelevant. At the very least, the Federal Circuit is likely to determine just how fast the justices will need to weigh in on V.O.S. Selections, and whether the Supreme Court can make this case disappear without having to produce an opinion explaining why. If the Federal Circuit upholds the tariffs, the Supreme Court could potentially end any legal threats to Trump's trade war by simply refusing to hear V.O.S. Selections. Conversely, if the Federal Circuit issues a broad injunction blocking the tariffs, the justices will need to decide very quickly whether to halt that injunction or the tariffs will go away, at least temporarily. The legal arguments against Trump's tariffs, explained Trump relied on a federal law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) when he imposed the tariffs that are now before the Federal Circuit. These tariffs include a broad range of import taxes that Trump claims are necessary to combat trade deficits — meaning that Americans buy more goods from many countries than they sell. They also include additional tariffs targeting Canada, Mexico, and China, which Trump claims will somehow help prevent illegal activity such as fentanyl trafficking. The IEEPA permits the president to 'regulate…transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,' but this power 'may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' The plaintiffs challenging these tariffs raise several statutory arguments. Among other things, they argue that a statute giving Trump the power to 'regulate' trade does not permit him to impose import taxes. They claim that the Canada, Mexico, and China tariffs don't actually do anything to 'deal with' fentanyl. And they argue that trade deficits, which have 'been a consistent feature of the U.S. economy since the mid-1970s' are common and ordinary – not 'unusual and extraordinary' as the IEEPA requires. All of these are plausible statutory arguments — the last argument is particularly strong — and the plaintiffs' case against these tariffs should be a slam dunk under something known as the 'major questions doctrine.' This doctrine, which was recently invented by the Supreme Court's Republican majority, requires Congress to 'speak clearly' before it can give the executive branch the power to make decisions of 'vast 'economic and political significance.'' Related How the Supreme Court put itself in charge of the executive branch According to the Budget Lab at Yale, Trump's tariffs will cost Americans 'the equivalent of an average per household income loss of $2,800 in 2025,' and they will reduce employment by 641,000 jobs. So they are clearly a matter of great economic and political significance. Under the major questions doctrine, that means that any uncertainty about how to read the IEEPA must be resolved against Trump. The strongest argument for the tariffs, meanwhile, is not legal but political. Republicans control six of the nine seats on the Supreme Court, and the major questions doctrine is brand new — it has never been used against any president who isn't named 'Joe Biden.' So it is far from clear whether the Republican justices, who held last year that Trump is allowed to use the powers of the presidency to commit crimes, will actually apply this new constraint on executive power to a president of their party. (Trump's lawyers, for what it is worth, do make legal arguments against applying the major questions doctrine in V.O.S. Selections. Their primary argument is that the doctrine doesn't apply to policy decisions made directly by the president himself, an argument that at least three federal appeals courts have previously rejected.) The Federal Circuit, however, is a highly specialized court that primarily deals with patent law. Patents aren't a particularly polarizing topic — or, at least, they aren't a topic that tends to divide Democrats from Republicans — so Federal Circuit judges tend to be more technocratic than the highly vetted political operatives who are typically appointed to the Supreme Court. For this reason, partisan politics are likely to play less of a role in the Federal Circuit's deliberations over V.O.S. Selections than they will when this case reaches the justices. There are also many prominent voices within the Republican Party that oppose the tariffs. The lead attorney representing many of the plaintiffs is Michael McConnell, a prominent conservative legal scholar who spent seven years as a federal appellate judge after he was appointed by President George W. Bush. At a recent conference hosted by the Federalist Society, a highly influential bar association for right-wing lawyers, several speakers criticized the tariffs. So, even in a Supreme Court that is typically in the tank for Donald Trump, there is a very real chance that these tariffs could fall. The Federal Circuit is likely to determine when the justices have to decide this case Realistically, the Federal Circuit is unlikely to have the final word on the tariffs. If the appeals court blocks the tariffs, Trump's lawyers will race to the Supreme Court seeking a stay of that decision. That said, the Federal Circuit's decision is likely to decide how quickly the justices must take up this case, and whether they need to explain their ultimate decision to support or oppose the tariffs. Broadly speaking, the Federal Circuit could decide this case in one of three ways: First, the appeals court could strike down the tariffs and issue an injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from enforcing them. If that happens, Trump will ask the Supreme Court to block that injunction on its 'shadow docket,' a mix of emergency motions and other matters that the justices decide on an expedited basis. In this scenario, we are likely to know whether the justices support the tariffs or not within a few weeks of the Federal Circuit's decision. At the other end of the spectrum, the Federal Circuit might uphold the tariffs. If that happens, the plaintiffs will ask the Supreme Court to review the case on its merits docket, but that process can take more than a year to resolve. And the Court may refuse to hear the case, which would mean that the tariffs will remain in effect and the justices will likely never have to explain why they sided with Trump. A third option is that the Federal Circuit could rule against the tariffs, but not issue an immediate injunction blocking them. If that happens, the Supreme Court is still likely to take up the case, but it will do so on its merits docket rather than on the fast-moving shadow docket. We will likely have to wait months or longer before the justices show their cards — and the tariffs will likely remain in place during that entire wait.
Vox
a day ago
- Politics
- Vox
Epstein breaks Congress
This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here. Welcome to The Logoff: President Donald Trump's self-inflicted Jeffrey Epstein scandal has essentially paralyzed the House of Representatives, as Speaker Mike Johnson announced today that the chamber would recess early to avoid voting to disclose information about the deceased financier. What changed? The House had been scheduled to remain in session until Thursday, but will now recess tomorrow and remain out until September 2 after a new bipartisan bill to release files on Epstein gained traction. A long August recess is normal for Congress, but not the abrupt decision to head for the door early. Why does this matter? The Logoff hasn't covered the Epstein scandal yet because our mission is to highlight what matters most — not what's talked about most. But it's become clear that, at least for now, this isn't going away, and the lengths that Trump's Republican allies in the House are going to to avoid the issue are noteworthy. Outside Congress, it has real staying power within Trump's coalition. Like it or not, the conspiracy theory is playing an inescapable role in politics right now. What's the context? Trump, and by extension the Republican Party, have struggled to respond to a ballooning scandal around their refusal to disclose new information about clients of Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died by suicide in federal custody in 2019. Releasing additional information would go against standard DOJ procedure — but Trump and many of his allies promised to do so during the 2024 campaign, and Trump's attorney general, Pam Bondi, said in February that she was reviewing Epstein's alleged 'client list' for potential release. The Logoff The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. What's next? Johnson remains stuck between a Republican conference ready to vote in favor of releasing more information and Trump, who has aggressively resisted calls to do so. It's unclear if the August recess will give him any breathing room, but in the meantime, the DOJ is hoping to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted Epstein associate, to seek new information about possible Epstein clients, and the House Oversight Committee voted Tuesday to subpoena Maxwell to testify. And with that, it's time to log off…
Daily Record
a day ago
- Daily Record
Family's Mexico ‘dream holiday' turns into terror as gunfight erupts at poolside
Colin Nulty, from Bolton, was enjoying a family break with his wife and 14-year-old daughter at the Riu Palace Costa Mujeres in April when gunmen burst into the hotel's pool area. A firefighter has told how his family were forced to flee for their lives after a gun battle erupted just metres away from their sun loungers during an £8,000 dream holiday in Mexico. Colin Nulty, his wife, and their 14-year-old daughter had been looking forward to relaxing by the pool with cocktails at the Riu Palace Costa Mujeres. Instead, they found themselves hiding under a lounger as shots rang out. 'We were sunbathing by the side of the pool and positioned right next to the Tequila Bar, near to where they serve the drinks, as that was our usual spot,' Colin told The Mirror. 'Our daughter had just left us to go upstairs. My wife and I decided to go for a cigarette at our usual spot down the ramp to the beach. Gunfire erupted and my wife and I instinctively ran back to our sun lounger and hid behind while crouching on the floor. "My wife was crying, and people were running everywhere trying to hide behind something. I messaged my daughter whilst hiding, telling her to stay in the room, stay quiet, and lock the door as there is a shooting going on.' Colin, from Bolton, waited for a pause in the gunfire before rushing to see if anyone needed help. 'I have advanced trauma care skills,' he explained. 'I assessed the scene and told my wife I was going to see who had been shot and if I could help them. No shots had been heard for a while, so I deemed this a suitable risk if it saved a life. 'I approached the bar, scanning for gunmen, and I could see the man on the floor was displaying what we term in the services as 'injuries incompatible with life.' He was already past help. "It is at this moment that a man with a gun came out of the male toilet door, and he was very agitated but in control and scanning for threats. In hindsight, he seemed trained and held his weapon in a controlled manner. "He shouted at me to go away and also shouted at a group of American teenagers who were filming the events unfolding on their mobiles.' Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. Realising the danger, Colin rushed back to his wife. The family later barricaded themselves in their room, terrified. After the ordeal, TUI offered to move them to another hotel, but en route they learned of another shootout at their proposed new resort, the Princess Hotel. They returned to their original hotel and flew home the next day. 'It was horrific and terrifying without a doubt,' Colin said. 'The fear of thinking you are in the middle of a terrorist attack of some kind is scary indeed. We were unaware until some time after the incident that it was an undercover police operation gone wrong, so, of course, we thought it was terror-related.' The incident has had lasting effects. Colin revealed his wife has since been diagnosed with severe PTSD: 'These events had a big impact on my wife's daily life and still do to this day. It has had a massive impact on the dynamics of the home and day-to-day life of going out and walking our dogs. Everything has changed since the holiday. "My wife has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder with Severe Emotional Dissociation. She is on the waiting list to receive treatment and counselling.' Riu Hotels and Resorts said the shooting was part of an 'operation carried out by the Prosecutor's Office targeting a group of drug dealers in the area,' with armed individuals entering the hotel grounds. Colin has since been refunded eight days of his trip – worth £3,873.57 – plus a £1,000 TUI voucher, but he insists it's not enough. 'We were refunded exactly eight days of the holiday, their reasoning being we had a nice time up until the shooting incident. 'Initially, TUI was responsive to emails and I had many phone conversations with a handler. However, I have never received anything in writing from them acknowledging the incident, or anything saying they are refunding or compensating. 'They have since refused to answer any of my correspondence or comment on this case with any other companies or media offices that have contacted them.' Frustrated, Colin has turned to ABTA, the Association of British Travel Agents, and plans to take the case to small claims court. 'I only ever asked for a full refund of the holiday, but TUI's refusal has left me no choice other than to go through ABTA and then small claims court. They have made it so hard for us and they do this intentionally hoping I will just stop, but I won't.'
Daily Record
a day ago
- Business
- Daily Record
Over 100 victims of Mohamed Al Fayed abuse claim compensation
The Harrods scheme started issuing compensation in April and it will remain open to applications until March next year. More than 100 survivors of alleged sexual abuse by Mohamed Al Fayed have entered Harrods' redress scheme, the department store said as it also confirmed applicants had started receiving compensation. The scheme, developed with law firm MPL Legal and funded by Harrods, opened for applications at the end of March and will remain live until March 31 next year. In a three-month update, the store announced that survivors who were employed by Mr Al Fayed's private airline company Fayair (Jersey) Co. Limited, and claim to have suffered abuse before May 7, 2010, can now also apply to the scheme. "Since the redress scheme's inception, more than 100 survivors have entered the process, with many having had eligibility confirmed," Harrods said. "Compensation awards and interim payments began being issued to eligible survivors at the end of April. "Survivors are making use of both the non-medical and medical pathways." The store also stressed that the scheme did not require survivors to undergo medical assessment. "There have been misleading reports that the scheme requires survivors to be assessed by a medical expert," it said in its FAQs. "Harrods would like to reassure survivors that this is not the case. Since its launch, the scheme has provided eligible applicants with a choice to proceed with either a non-medical pathway or medical pathway." Harrods "apologises unreservedly" for the sexual abuse people suffered and "wants everyone who is eligible to receive this compensation", according to documents on the scheme's website. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. Those eligible can apply for a number of types of compensation: - General damages of up to £200,000 - Work impact payment of up to £150,000 - Aggravated damages of up to £25,000 - Wrongful testing fixed payment(s) of up to £10,000 - Treatment costs All eligible applicants are offered a meeting with a senior Harrods' representative, to receive an apology in person or by video, as well as an individual written apology. The scheme only requires "documentary evidence", meaning applicants are not asked to give oral evidence about their claims. If a person makes a successful application and accepts an offer, it is treated as "full and final settlement", meaning they waive their right to pursue action for damages. It was reported earlier this month that the Metropolitan Police had apologised to alleged victims of Mr Al Fayed for the distress they had suffered in a letter leaked to the BBC. The Met is reviewing a total of 21 allegations that were made before Mr Al Fayed died in 2023, and had referred two of these to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) in November. More than 100 alleged victims have contacted police to say they were sexually abused by the tycoon, the youngest of whom is thought to have been 13 at the time.
