Latest news with #StateofTexas
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's attorney John Bash drops out of Texas Attorney General race
AUSTIN (Nexstar) — John Bash's campaign to replace Ken Paxton as Texas Attorney General lasted for just 21 days. 'Today, I've made the difficult decision to leave the race for Texas AG,' Bash wrote on X Wednesday evening. 'On Friday, our family had a health scare that threw into sharp focus how I should prioritize my time right now, and that is not running for office.' Bash announced his campaign on April 9, drawing headlines not only for being the first major candidate to enter the race, but for his ties to billionaire Elon Musk. Bash currently represents Musk in a defamation case after Musk amplified social media posts falsely placing a California man at a clash involving far-right protesters near an Oregon Pride festival. Bash spoke with State of Texas two weeks ago, highlighting his record as the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas — contrasting it with the record of State Senator and oil and gas businessman Mayes Middleton, R – Galveston. 'I'm not a career politician. I've never run for office before,' he said. '(Attorney General is) not a position you use to advance your political career. It's a real working position that needs to come up with legal strategies to keep our citizens safe, to keep them prosperous.' In his post announcing the end of his campaign, Bash slightly changed his tune about Middleton. 'The other candidate in the race, Senator @mayes_middleton, has served Texas honorably in the Legislature, and I know him to be a good man,' Bash wrote. Despite the compliments, he failed to endorse any candidates for the job. 'I will be rooting for the next AG to represent our great State with distinction and to continue the impactful work of General @KenPaxtonTX.' With Bash out of the race, Middleton is the only person publicly running to replace Paxton. The election is in November 2026. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Texas judge rejects temporary injunction seeking gender testing in NCAA women's sports
LUBBOCK, Texas − A Lubbock district judge on Tuesday denied a request for temporary injunction that would require the NCAA to impose genetic testing on athletes to determine their sex or have the organization and its affiliates remove the word "women" from women's competition. In the State of Texas v. the NCAA, filed in December in Lubbock County, state attorney general Ken Paxton says the NCAA has been "engaging in false, deceptive, and misleading practices by marketing sporting events as 'women's' competitions, only to then provide consumers with mixed sex competitions where biological males compete against biological females." The suit sought an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from "allowing biological males to compete in women's sporting events in Texas or involving Texas teams, or alternatively requiring the NCAA to stop marketing events as 'women's' when in fact they are mixed sex competitions." Advertisement In December, NCAA President Charlie Baker told a Senate panel that about 510,000 athletes compete in the NCAA and he knows of fewer than 10 who are transgender. Judge Les Hatch denied the injunction in Lubbock's 237th District Court. "I'm not commenting about the NCAA policy, whether it was right or wrong at that time," Hatch told the plaintiffs' counsel, "but you've asked me to order SRY gene testing or remove the word 'women,' but I don't think we're there yet. I don't think SRY testing is going to accomplish with 100% certainty what you want it to. Or at least I didn't hear that it does." President Donald Trump, on Feb. 5, signed an executive order designed to keep transgender athletes out of women's sports. Advertisement Hatch made his ruling at the end of seven hours in the courtroom. Most of the proceedings centered on testimony from women who are recent former NCAA athletes who said they'd been adversely affected by having to compete — in one case, unknowingly — with or against a transgender athlete. Former Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines testified by Zoom from Wisconsin. Testifying in the courtroom were former San Jose State volleyball player Brooke Slusser, her mother, Kim Slusser, former North Carolina State swimmer Kylee Alons and former Kentucky swimmer Kaitlynn Wheeler. Hatch said he'd anticipated hearing a lot about SRY gene testing and that he expected it to be "a science hearing as much as anything." "I do know the executive order does not set out what type of testing President Trump wants in his order," Hatch said. "Instead, he has ordered various people, agencies, to confer to figure out what is a proper methodology to determine male and female — because even the SRY gene, which was abandoned by the Olympics in 1996, because they tested 3,400 women, found eight to have the SRY gene, but then later, upon further investigation, found them to be more female than male due to androgen insensitivity." Advertisement He went on to say, "Before I started delving into this lawsuit, I figured there was a test out there that was black and white, that was 100%, but I think if that were the case, that would have been included in the executive order. It's just not there." The NCAA issued an updated policy on transgender athlete participation on Feb. 6, the day after the Trump executive order. Attorney Tom Riney, part of the defense team, pointed out that some of the women who testified as supporting witnesses for the state, had initially praised the NCAA policy change. The women who had done so said on the stand, however, they didn't immediately grasp the nuances and changed their opinion after reviewing it more carefully. The Independent Council on Women's Sports (ICONS), in a statement sent to media, says the new NCAA policy is "even more permissive than before.' It noted the NCAA has removed itself from eligibility monitoring, leaving it to schools. Swimmers, volleyball player Brooke Slusser testify Gaines, Wheeler and Alons told the court they felt angered and violated having to compete at NCAA swim meets against Lia Thomas, who is transgender. Advertisement Alons said she felt "on edge," "uncomfortable" and "vulnerable" sharing a locker room with Thomas and used a dirty, dimly lit storage closet to change into her competition swimsuit. Brooke Slusser said her senior season at San Jose State was disrupted by the presence of a transgender teammate. "Especially with the fact that I found out after sharing a locker room and a hotel room and an apartment with this person, I think it affected me a lot," Slusser said. "I felt betrayed." From left, Kim Slusser, Kaitlynn Wheeler and Brooke Slusser are shown outside a Lubbock, Texas, courtroom. They testified on Tuesday, March 18, 2025, as supporting witnesses in Texas v. the NCAA. A district judge denied the state's request for a temporary injunction. The hearing and Hatch's ruling came as March Madness, the NCAA Tournament for Division I basketball, was starting. The NCAA Tournament for Division II and Division III are already three rounds deep. Advertisement In his opening statement, Riney said the state's complaint made references to NCAA policy being problematic for "over a decade." "So for over a decade this has been going on," Riney said, "they filed a suit in December of 2024, and here we are after some of the (NCAA) tournaments have already started and it's somehow an emergency that they say demands injunctive relief." Riney circled back in his closing argument to the disruption an injunction would cause. "The tournaments have already started," he said. "How is this court going to implement that testing immediately? They've given you no evidence of what that test would require, who would be required to perform it, whether or not it's reliable, whether or not people could cheat on that. They're just asking basically to disrupt the tournament." Advertisement Further, Riney said, an injunction requiring references to women be removed presumed late changes would be needed to tournament tickets, logos and merchandise. This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Judge denies temporary injunction in suit tied to transgender athletes
USA Today
19-03-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Texas judge rejects temporary injunction seeking gender testing in NCAA women's sports
Texas judge rejects temporary injunction seeking gender testing in NCAA women's sports LUBBOCK, Texas − A Lubbock district judge on Tuesday denied a request for temporary injunction that would require the NCAA to impose genetic testing on athletes to determine their sex or have the organization and its affiliates remove the word "women" from women's competition. In the State of Texas v. the NCAA, filed in December in Lubbock County, state attorney general Ken Paxton says the NCAA has been "engaging in false, deceptive, and misleading practices by marketing sporting events as 'women's' competitions, only to then provide consumers with mixed sex competitions where biological males compete against biological females." The suit sought an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from "allowing biological males to compete in women's sporting events in Texas or involving Texas teams, or alternatively requiring the NCAA to stop marketing events as 'women's' when in fact they are mixed sex competitions." In December, NCAA President Charlie Baker told a Senate panel that about 510,000 athletes compete in the NCAA and he knows of fewer than 10 who are transgender. Judge Les Hatch denied the injunction in Lubbock's 237th District Court. "I'm not commenting about the NCAA policy, whether it was right or wrong at that time," Hatch told the plaintiffs' counsel, "but you've asked me to order SRY gene testing or remove the word 'women,' but I don't think we're there yet. I don't think SRY testing is going to accomplish with 100% certainty what you want it to. Or at least I didn't hear that it does." President Donald Trump, on Feb. 5, signed an executive order designed to keep transgender athletes out of women's sports. Hatch made his ruling at the end of seven hours in the courtroom. Most of the proceedings centered on testimony from women who are recent former NCAA athletes who said they'd been adversely affected by having to compete — in one case, unknowingly — with or against a transgender athlete. Former Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines testified by Zoom from Wisconsin. Testifying in the courtroom were former San Jose State volleyball player Brooke Slusser, her mother, Kim Slusser, former North Carolina State swimmer Kylee Alons and former Kentucky swimmer Kaitlynn Wheeler. Hatch said he'd anticipated hearing a lot about SRY gene testing and that he expected it to be "a science hearing as much as anything." "I do know the executive order does not set out what type of testing President Trump wants in his order," Hatch said. "Instead, he has ordered various people, agencies, to confer to figure out what is a proper methodology to determine male and female — because even the SRY gene, which was abandoned by the Olympics in 1996, because they tested 3,400 women, found eight to have the SRY gene, but then later, upon further investigation, found them to be more female than male due to androgen insensitivity." He went on to say, "Before I started delving into this lawsuit, I figured there was a test out there that was black and white, that was 100%, but I think if that were the case, that would have been included in the executive order. It's just not there." The NCAA issued an updated policy on transgender athlete participation on Feb. 6, the day after the Trump executive order. Attorney Tom Riney, part of the defense team, pointed out that some of the women who testified as supporting witnesses for the state, had initially praised the NCAA policy change. The women who had done so said on the stand, however, they didn't immediately grasp the nuances and changed their opinion after reviewing it more carefully. The Independent Council on Women's Sports (ICONS), in a statement sent to media, says the new NCAA policy is "even more permissive than before.' It noted the NCAA has removed itself from eligibility monitoring, leaving it to schools. Swimmers, volleyball player Brooke Slusser testify Gaines, Wheeler and Alons told the court they felt angered and violated having to compete at NCAA swim meets against Lia Thomas, who is transgender. Alons said she felt "on edge," "uncomfortable" and "vulnerable" sharing a locker room with Thomas and used a dirty, dimly lit storage closet to change into her competition swimsuit. Brooke Slusser said her senior season at San Jose State was disrupted by the presence of a transgender teammate. "Especially with the fact that I found out after sharing a locker room and a hotel room and an apartment with this person, I think it affected me a lot," Slusser said. "I felt betrayed." The hearing and Hatch's ruling came as March Madness, the NCAA Tournament for Division I basketball, was starting. The NCAA Tournament for Division II and Division III are already three rounds deep. In his opening statement, Riney said the state's complaint made references to NCAA policy being problematic for "over a decade." "So for over a decade this has been going on," Riney said, "they filed a suit in December of 2024, and here we are after some of the (NCAA) tournaments have already started and it's somehow an emergency that they say demands injunctive relief." Riney circled back in his closing argument to the disruption an injunction would cause. "The tournaments have already started," he said. "How is this court going to implement that testing immediately? They've given you no evidence of what that test would require, who would be required to perform it, whether or not it's reliable, whether or not people could cheat on that. They're just asking basically to disrupt the tournament." Further, Riney said, an injunction requiring references to women be removed presumed late changes would be needed to tournament tickets, logos and merchandise.
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Alaska disability advocates fear impacts from federal lawsuit in which state says Medicaid services are at risk
Feb. 26—JUNEAU — A coalition of Alaska disability advocates is raising concerns about the potential impacts of a federal lawsuit the state joined in September. Alaska and 16 other states filed the suit — State of Texas et al v. Becerra et al — in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The states challenged regulations the Biden administration enacted last year to update disability discrimination law in areas such as health care, education and employment. The regulations amended Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act that was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1973, which prohibits recipients of federal funding from discriminating against people with disabilities. The 17 Republican-led states joined the complaint for various reasons. The Biden administration's regulations stated that "gender dysphoria" may be considered a disability for discrimination protections, the states argued. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who initiated the lawsuit, sought to challenge those protections. But that was not the impetus for the state of Alaska joining the lawsuit. The Alaska Department of Law in September said the Biden administration's "sweeping" new regulations would impose "unfunded mandates" on states, particularly for Medicaid services in Alaska. Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor said the state risked losing federal funding if it failed to comply with the law. He said substantial costs could be borne by the state, and Medicaid providers may stop offering services if the regulations survive. Republicans in Congress this week advanced a spending plan that calls for cutting billions of dollars from Medicaid. The Section 504 issue is unrelated. Disability advocates across the U.S., and in Alaska, have been outraged and concerned by the suit. The 48-page complaint contains language asking that Texas Judge James Hendrix strike down Section 504, although the states on Feb. 19 filed a joint status report that clarified they are not seeking to have Section 504 eliminated in its entirety. Instead, the legal challenge would focus on requirements that disabled Americans get services in the "most integrated setting" — meaning in places where disabled people can interact with other people as much as possible, the states said. Taylor said there had been "misunderstandings" and "misinformation" about the suit. "Despite the fearmongering going on, the reality is that if the new rule is allowed to stand, there will be less services available for those who currently receive benefits under Section 504," he said by email last week. The state of Alaska, in its complaint, said "it is not fiscally feasible for its system of care to provide all services across the State in the Final Rule's definition of the most integrated setting in every instance." The Statewide Independent Living Council of Alaska and several other disability advocacy groups said 90,000 Alaskans rely on discrimination protections through Section 504. They wrote a letter to Taylor last week, urging him to withdraw the state from the lawsuit. "You directly attack every Alaskan with a disability, along with their friends, families, and communities," the groups said. In their five-page letter, Alaska disability advocates pushed back against the state's assertions. They said the Biden administration's regulations do not impose new requirements for community-based care. The state can also get exemptions, they said. "A lot of the claims as they lay out are actual issues with Section 504 itself, and not anything implemented by the Final Rule (put in place by the Biden administration)," said Amanda Coelho, assistant executive director of the Statewide Independent Living Council of Alaska. Mark Regan, legal director of the Disability Law Center of Alaska, said the new regulations clarified existing requirements. But he said they were not new. "I'm skeptical that Medicaid providers — or potential Medicaid providers — in Alaska are being discouraged from doing anything because of the Section 504 regulations," he said in a Friday interview. Regan added it was "a good thing" for disability advocates that the lawsuit in Texas appeared to be moving slowly. Judge Hendrix requested the next status update from the states in April.
