Latest news with #StateoftheUnion
Atlantic
2 days ago
- Business
- Atlantic
How the Right Is Waging War on Climate-Conscious Investing
In January 2020, Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock—the world's largest asset-management firm—released his annual letter to corporate executives. The letters had become something of a tradition: part investor missive, part State of the Union, dispatched each year from the top of the financial world. This one struck a tone of alarm that would reverberate far beyond Wall Street. 'Climate change has become a defining factor in companies' long-term prospects,' Fink warned. 'We are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.' He said that BlackRock would be 'increasingly disposed to vote against management and board directors when companies are not making sufficient progress' on sustainability. The message signaled the degree to which a once-obscure investing philosophy known as ESG—short for 'environmental, social, and governance'—had become a boardroom priority. For a moment, it looked like corporate America would weigh carbon emissions alongside profits. More major companies soon announced climate goals and promised new standards of accountability. BlackRock helped lead an effort to elect sustainability advocates to the board of ExxonMobil. A consensus seemed to be forming: Business could be a force for good, and markets might even help save the planet. Now, just five years later, that consensus is crumbling. BP is pulling back on a commitment to invest in renewables—and is reportedly expanding plans for drilling. PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have scaled back their plastic-reduction pledges. Major banks, such as JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, are hedging their climate bets and investing heavily in fossil-fuel companies. Asset-management firms that joined BlackRock in embracing ESG—including Vanguard and State Street—have also backed off. And Fink's 2025 letter to investors does not even mention the word climate. James Surowiecki: The hottest trend in investing is mostly a sham 'This further exacerbates the problem of slow-walking climate action at a time when the temperature records are being broken and devastating weather events are accelerating,' Richard Brooks, the climate finance director for an international environmental-advocacy organization that focuses in part on corporate contributions to climate change, told us. This global retreat has been particularly acute in the United States, where political resistance to ESG has grown into an organized countermovement. The issue is now a fixture in partisan attack ads, Republican statehouse legislation, and right-wing media. The forces arrayed against ESG say they are just getting started. In January, a group of present and former Republican state officials gathered at a posh resort in Sea Island, Georgia, together with conservative leaders, for a two-day lesson in how to dismantle corporate America's most ambitious response to climate change. At the Cloister, with its golf courses, tennis courts, and beaches, ESG was denounced as a sinister force undermining free markets and democracy. 'I would hope everyone here is pretty much committed to destroying ESG,' said Will Hild, the executive director of Consumers' Research, the organization that has led the fight. His group, he said, had spent $5 million running ads 'educating consumers' about the dangers of ESG. Hild spread a similar message at other events this spring, according to transcripts of his remarks that we obtained. 'ESG is when they use their market share to push a far-left agenda, without ever having to go to voters, without any electoral accountability,' said Hild at a March meeting of state activists. 'This is not the free market operating. This is a cartel. This is a mafia.' At its core, ESG investing means integrating nonfinancial factors—such as climate risk, carbon emissions, pollution, and corporate governance—into investment decisions, with the idea that these issues could materially affect long-term performance. Firms that offer ESG funds screen out companies that don't meet a set of criteria for climate protection, and pitch their products to investors as climate-friendly alternatives to conventional funds. But in the eyes of its critics, ESG investing undermines democratic governance, imposes political priorities through the financial system, and breaches the independence of state financial officers to seek maximum return on investments. 'By applying arbitrary ESG financial metrics that serve no one except the companies that created them, elites are circumventing the ballot box to implement a radical ideological agenda,' Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said in 2023 when he introduced legislation prohibiting the use of ESG investment by Florida pension and other state funds. That narrative has taken hold with a wide swath of Republican leaders. Donald Trump attacked ESG on the campaign trail last year, and in an April 8 executive order, the president said that state-level climate-emissions and ESG laws 'are fundamentally irreconcilable with my Administration's objective to unleash American energy. They should not stand.' The roots of ESG can be traced to faith-based investing of the 18th century, when some religious denominations sought to avoid investment in corporations that promoted trading enslaved people. In the 20th century, the movement called 'socially responsible investing' gained momentum during the civil-rights era and, later, in connection with opposition to apartheid in South Africa. The term ESG was formally coined in a 2004 report by the United Nations Global Compact titled 'Who Cares Wins,' which argued that better corporate integration of environmental, social, and governance factors could lead to more-sustainable markets and better outcomes around the globe. ESG investing grew in the 2010s as the public grew more concerned about diversity, the environment, and executive pay. Major asset managers such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street began offering ESG products, and companies competed to establish metrics to track compliance. As the world's largest asset manager, BlackRock played an especially influential role. Because there was no single established metric for meeting climate goals, critics on the left complained that ESG encouraged greenwashing, in which companies claim to be making environmental progress without making an actual commitment. But even critics were forced to concede that ESG brought about increased transparency. In 2018, 34 percent of publicly traded global companies disclosed greenhouse-gas-emission details. By 2023, that share had risen to 63 percent, an increase generally attributable to ESG efforts, according to R. Paul Herman, the founder and CEO of HIP Investor Inc. Although many asset managers noted the difficulties of measuring greenhouse-gas emissions, they embraced ESG as part of their long-term management strategy—and trillions of dollars flowed to them. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, global ESG-fund assets reached around $30 trillion in 2022. The analytics firm forecast in February 2024 that global ESG assets would surpass $40 trillion by 2030. Expectations for ESG have now fallen off dramatically—and Hild and his three colleagues at Consumers' Research can claim much of the credit. At seminars such as the one at Sea Island, Hild and his allies armed a network of Republican state attorneys general, state treasurers, and comptrollers with legal and political ammunition. The key funders of such efforts include fossil-fuel-industry executives and Leonard Leo, who is best known for his leadership of the Federalist Society. In recent years, Leo has moved beyond his focus on transforming America's courts, vowing in videotaped remarks in 2023 to take on 'wokeism in the corporate environment, in the educational environment,' biased media, and 'entertainment that is really corrupting our youth.' Beginning in 2021, Leo and his team injected cash into a long-dormant organization that they would use to fight ESG: Consumers' Research. A spokesperson for Leo told us that 'woke companies are defrauding their consumers and poisoning our culture, and Leonard Leo is proud to support Will Hild and Consumers' Research as they crush liberal dominance in those woke companies and hold them accountable.' The organization found a receptive audience among Republican state officials eager for a road map to combatting ESG. The group emphasized using leverage that states possess through their management of pension funds to punish investment firms that had signed on to boycott oil and gas companies. Zoë Schlanger: The climate can't afford another Trump presidency Republican attorneys general from a few fossil-fuel-dependent states, such as Texas and West Virginia, began in 2021 to investigate whether investments tied to ESG guidelines violated state laws. They sent letters of inquiry to major firms such as BlackRock and Vanguard, questioning whether their ESG practices were legally compatible with states' fiduciary obligations, especially concerning pension funds. That same year, Texas enacted Senate Bill 13, which requires state pension systems and other state endowments to divest from financial institutions seen as hostile to the oil and gas industry. Under that law, the state attorney general's office placed more than 370 investment firms on a blacklist—including BlackRock and several divisions of major banks such as Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan. The following year, the offensive intensified. A coalition of 19 Republican attorneys general sent a joint letter to Fink, the BlackRock CEO, accusing the company of putting climate goals ahead of financial returns and pressuring corporations to align with international climate treaties such as the Paris Agreement. 'BlackRock appears to use the hard-earned money of our states' citizens to circumvent the best possible return on investment,' the letter warned. It cited proxy-voting strategies and coordination with groups such as the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative as potential legal overreach. Since 2022, 23 Republican state attorneys general have opened investigations into ESG-focused investment firms. Several of those officials had help from an Arizona-based private firm, Fusion Law, which received $4.5 million from Consumers' Research in its first two years of existence. One of the firm's founders, Paul Watkins, is a former Arizona civil-litigation chief in the state's attorney general's office—and was also a legal fellow at Consumers' Research. 'Paul Watkins and Fusion Law have been essential in helping to unravel and document the inner workings of ESG,' Hild told us. The firm has had contracts to work on ESG-related issues with attorneys general in Tennessee and Utah. Watkins has been a featured speaker at Consumers' Research events, including the gathering in January. Recently, state-level investigators began probing the question of whether environmental groups, asset managers, and shareholder-advocacy organizations were engaged in collusion, using ESG to restrain trade in fossil-fuel companies, in violation of antitrust laws. The opposition of red-state officials has chilled discussion of sustainable investments at institutional-investor meetings, according to participants, despite accusations of hypocrisy from Democratic officials in blue states. Brad Lander, New York City's comptroller, told us that Republicans are distorting investment decisions by putting their thumb on the scale against ESG. 'These are people who once upon a time believed in free markets,' Lander, a Democrat, told us. 'I'm not telling anyone how to invest. I just don't want them to tell me.' Evidence suggests that the Republican push has been costly to taxpayers. A study by the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business found that the Texas law banning municipalities from doing business with banks that have ESG policies reduced the competition for borrowing—and generated a potential cost of up to $532 million in extra interest per year. Nonetheless, the anti-ESG movement is spreading: What began largely as a state-level attack has now blossomed on Capitol Hill. In mid-2023, House Republicans, led by Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, launched a wide-ranging probe into ESG practices. More than 60 entities, including environmental groups, corporations, and financial institutions, were asked to provide information on alleged coordination aimed at limiting fossil-fuel investment. The committee's interim staff report, released last year, accused ESG advocates of forming a 'climate cartel' that sought to 'impose left-wing environmental, social, and governance goals' through coordinated pressure campaigns. The report alleged that such efforts amounted to collusion in restraint of trade. During his inquiry, Jordan issued waves of subpoenas targeting organizations such as Ceres, BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, and the shareholder-advocacy nonprofit As You Sow. Targets of the inquiry were required to turn over more than 100,000 pages of email and other communications as the committee investigated allegations of antitrust violations and collusion in recommending sustainable-investment options. 'The investigation was abusive, and it was chilling,' said Danielle Fugere, the president and chief counsel of As You Sow, who testified for more than eight hours before Jordan's panel last year. 'You cannot defy the reality of climate change and the scientific imperative of acting,' said Mindy Lubber, the president and CEO of the pro-sustainability nonprofit group Ceres, which has been active in prodding companies into taking part in ESG measures. But, she said, 'everybody is afraid of the bull's-eyes on their backs.' Annie Lowrey: If you're worried about the climate, move your money Jordan's inquiry is continuing this year, with a focus on possible antitrust violations by environmental organizations and asset managers and advisors. The pressure is working as intended. After Jordan launched his inquiry, many high-profile firms exited the Climate Action 100+ initiative. Coalitions of financial institutions that once committed to sustainable investing have collapsed. Several U.S. banks—including JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo—withdrew from an influential bankers' climate coalition, citing legal risk and political pressure. BlackRock and Vanguard pulled out of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, leading that group to halt operations. 'Our memberships in some of these organizations have caused confusion regarding BlackRock's practices and subjected us to legal inquiries from various public officials,' the company said in a letter to clients. 'BlackRock's active portfolio managers continue to assess material climate-related risks, alongside other investment risks, in delivering for clients.' The company, which declined our request to interview Fink, referred us to other official statements including one noting that 'BlackRock's sustainable and transition investing platform is driven by the needs of our clients and our continued investment conviction that the energy transition is a mega force shaping economies and markets.' Other asset managers issued similar statements, noting that they would still offer green-investment options. But interest in ESG funds has declined substantially. U.S. investment funds specializing in climate experienced net inflows of $70 billion in 2021—but by 2023, the tide had reversed, with money flowing out of the funds faster than it was coming in. Last year, net outflows amounted to $19.6 billion, with the trend continuing into the first quarter of 2025, according to Morningstar Analytics. Proxy initiatives from shareholders interested in sustainable investing have also declined, another casualty of the war against ESG. 'This has been a silent spring,' William Patterson, a former director for investment for the AFL-CIO who tracks climate-related shareholder action, told us. 'Investor initiatives on climate, which attained broad shareholder support in the past, are barely present' at investor meetings this year. Meanwhile, the number of anti-ESG proxy proposals more than quadrupled from 2021 to 2024. As of February, a fifth of all shareholder proposals submitted were filed by anti-ESG groups. Despite the precipitous decline of ESG investing, its detractors are not ready to declare victory. Consumers' Research, for one, is committed to pressing on. 'ESG is in retreat, but it is not defeated yet,' Hild told us. 'We have a long way to go before people get rid of it.' Proponents are not relenting either, and are looking forward to a moment when the political winds shift once more. 'What I hear, especially in the U.S., is twofold,' said Daniel Klier, the chief executive of the advisory firm South Pole. 'One message is 'Keep your head down,' but also that climate change will not go away—and we need to prepare for the decades to come and not just in the next four years.'
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Called to Settle High-Stakes Water Battle Between Two States
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. Nebraska is taking its long-standing water feud with Colorado to the nation's highest court, filing a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court over Colorado's water usage from the South Platte River. The move marks the latest chapter in a decades-old dispute between the two states, intensified by climate change and mounting water scarcity across the American West. At a news conference Wednesday, Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen and Attorney General Mike Hilgers announced the lawsuit, accusing Colorado of systematically withholding water that Nebraska is guaranteed under a 1923 interstate compact. "It's crystal clear. Colorado has been holding water back from Nebraska for almost 100 years and getting more and more egregious every single day," Pillen said, pointing to Colorado's rapidly growing population. "So today it's really, really simple: We're here to put our gloves on. We're going to fight like heck. We're going to get every drop of water." U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor talk on the House floor ahead of the annual State of the Union address by U.S. President Joe Biden before a joint session... U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor talk on the House floor ahead of the annual State of the Union address by U.S. President Joe Biden before a joint session of Congress at the Capital building on March 7, 2024, in Washington, DC. More Getty Images/AFP According to the lawsuit, Nebraska is being denied up to 1.3 million acre-feet of water that it is legally entitled to. In addition to alleged under-delivery, the suit claims Colorado officials have tried to block Nebraska's efforts to construct the Perkins County Canal, a major infrastructure project designed to divert water from Colorado to Nebraska. The canal would also include a reservoir and would require Nebraska to seize land inside Colorado—an action authorized under the terms of the compact. The water is crucial to Nebraska not only for agricultural production in its southwestern region—an area climate experts predict will become hotter and drier—but also for municipal water supplies in the east. Pillen noted that the city of Lincoln is expected to get 12 percent of its water from the proposed canal. The 1923 compact entitles Nebraska to 120 cubic feet per second of water during the irrigation season (April 1 to Oct. 15) and 500 cubic feet per second in the non-irrigation months. But Hilgers said Colorado has fallen well short of that mark this summer. "Colorado has been shortchanging Nebraska during the irrigation season, allowing only about 75 cubic feet per second of water daily into Nebraska," he said. Hilgers stressed the lawsuit's importance to Nebraska's future: "I think this may be the most consequential lawsuit that this office will be a part of in my generation. It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of the South Platte River to the future of the state of Nebraska." Colorado leaders were quick to respond. In a written statement, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser called the lawsuit "unfortunate" and said Nebraska had failed "to look for reasonable solutions." Colorado Governor Jared Polis also weighed in, describing the claims as "meritless" and denying that Colorado had violated the compact. The South Platte River, which flows from northeastern Colorado into southwestern Nebraska, has been a flashpoint between the states since 2022, when Nebraska announced plans to build the canal. Negotiations over land acquisition and implementation of the compact have stalled since then. "We are at an impasse," Hilgers said. But Weiser countered that Nebraska walked away from diplomacy. "Nebraska's actions will force Colorado water users to build additional new projects to lessen the impact of the proposed Perkins County Canal," he said. "When the dust finally settles, likely over a billion dollars will have been spent — tens of millions of that on litigation alone — and no one in Nebraska or Colorado will be better off." Because the dispute is between two states, the lawsuit was filed directly with the U.S. Supreme Court. Hilgers warned the legal process will be lengthy. "We'll probably have a special master appointed within the next 12 months, and under normal litigation timelines, that's maybe 3 to 5 years before we get a result," he said. However, that won't stop Nebraska from continuing work on permitting and design of the canal during the legal proceedings. Nebraska has a long history of litigation over water rights. In 2002, Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas reached a settlement over the Republican River, though disputes persisted and led to additional agreements in 2014. As the climate warms, such legal battles may become more frequent. Dr. Carly Phillips, a research scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said climate change is reshaping the western hydrological cycle. "These patterns are all in the same direction across the board," she said. "The trends are really consistent when it comes to snowpack, stream flow, evaporation and irrigation demand." Higher temperatures are reducing snowpack—the West's main water reservoir—and causing snow to melt earlier, ultimately disrupting stream flows and increasing irrigation needs in agricultural states like Nebraska. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
Axios
4 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
Eddie Garcia's possible comeback
Former Dallas police chief Eddie Garcia, who left last year to become an assistant city manager in Austin, is now vying for the top cop job in Fort Worth. Why it matters: Fort Worth is Texas' fourth largest city and the country's 11th largest, per the latest Census Bureau figures. The city's next police chief will be tasked with implementing public safety policies, maintaining the public's trust and weighing relationships with other agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Driving the news: Garcia is a finalist for the Fort Worth chief, as are interim chief Robert Alldredge Jr., former Dallas deputy chief Vernon Hale III and Los Angeles deputy chief Emada Tingirides, the city announced Tuesday. State of play: The Fort Worth Police Department has around 1,900 officers and 574 professional staff members and often has to compete with other nearby departments for recruits. Zoom in: Tingirides is the only woman finalist. She has spent 30 years with LAPD and was first lady Michelle Obama's guest at the 2015 State of the Union. Alldredge has spent 26 years at the Fort Worth Police Department and has served in almost all of the department's major divisions. Hale left Dallas after a 26-year career to become Galveston's police chief in 2018. He is now an assistant police chief in Prince George's County, Maryland. Garcia has spent over 30 years in public safety, including a stint as president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. He called himself a " blue collar chief" in Dallas and was popular among the rank-and-file and city leaders. The intrigue: Dallas officials tried holding on to Garcia, but he left to work for Austin city manager TC Broadnax, who used to be Dallas' city manager. What we're wondering: What sparked Garcia's interest in returning to North Texas and policing, just months after leaving for Austin.
Newsweek
5 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Amy Coney Barrett's Biggest Supreme Court Allies Revealed
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. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has remained a consistent member of the Court's conservative bloc during the 2024–25 term but her voting patterns showed nuance in key areas, new analysis shows. Despite MAGA backlash at some of her moves, Barrett voted most frequently with conservative-leaning justices, according to empirical figures from SCOTUSblog. Barrett agreed most with Justice Brett Kavanaugh (91 percent) and Chief Justice John Roberts, reflecting a continued center-right alignment, it said. Barrett voted least often with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (68 percent), Justice Neil Gorsuch (72 percent) and Justice Sonia Sotomayor (74 percent), the analysis found. While her overall rate of agreement with the majority was in the lower-mid range among justices, she occasionally sided with liberals in procedural or technical rulings. Why It Matters American public confidence in the judiciary has been increasing divided and perception of partisnaship at an all time high, Barrett's votes—though largely conservative—may come under heightened attention for any deviation from ideological orthodoxy. The ideological balance of the Court has fundamentally shifted in recent years, with six of its nine justices appointed by Republican presidents—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—and three nominated by Democratic presidents justices, and typically represent the Court's liberal minority—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett talk before President Joe Biden delivers the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S.... U.S. Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett talk before President Joe Biden delivers the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on February 7, 2023 in Washington, D.C. MoreWhat To Know In the 2024-25 term, Justice Barrett sided with the Court's majority in 81 percent of opinions, which from a total of 61 cases, places her in the minority in 12 decisions—typical for a reliably conservative justice who occasionally breaks from the bloc. Her minority votes do however, reflect a notable level of judicial independence, often stemming from her textualist and proceduralist approach. Some prominent examples include: Environmental Regulation Case : Barrett joined the three liberal justices to dissent in a closely watched pollution case, arguing that the majority misinterpreted statutory text—highlighting her willingness to break from conservative norms in favor of legal clarity : Barrett joined the three liberal justices to dissent in a closely watched pollution case, arguing that the majority misinterpreted statutory text—highlighting her willingness to break from conservative norms in favor of legal clarity Emergency Aid Freeze Case : She again aligned with liberals and Chief Justice Roberts to reject an emergency order freezing foreign aid, showing sensitivity to executive overreach : She again aligned with liberals and Chief Justice Roberts to reject an emergency order freezing foreign aid, showing sensitivity to executive overreach Jan. 6 Obstruction Ruling: Barrett shared a dissent with Sotomayor and Kagan, criticizing the majority's narrow interpretation of obstruction statutes related to the Capitol riot In early March, Justice Barrett joined Chief Justice Roberts and the court's three liberal justices in rejecting the Trump administration's request to freeze nearly $2 billion in USAID payments. For many MAGA figures, this wasn't just judicial restraint—it was a betrayal. Shortly after, Barrett voted against the Trump administration's position again, this time in a 5–4 decision concerning use of the Alien Enemies Act for deporting alleged gang members. She sided with the court's liberal justices in dissenting from the majority, which angered right‑wing activists who saw her as undermining Trump's authority For MAGA supporters, Barrett's judgments during these high‑profile disputes—arguably the most emblematic of Trump's agenda—crossed a line. Despite his increasingly vocal criticism of perceived disloyalty from within the conservative legal sphere, President Donald Trump has notably refrained from publicly turning on Barrett. His early investment in Barrett remains evident. At her 2020 swearing-in, Trump lauded the Notre Dame law professor as "one of our nation's most brilliant legal scholars," and insisted she would "faithfully interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench." The Supreme Court of the United States continues to draw national attention as a powerful arbiter of American law, increasingly perceived as driving jurisprudence in a conservative direction. A Gallup poll, conducted September 3 to 15, 2024 among 1,007 adults, suggested 58 percent of Americans view the court as conservative. Trust in the judicial branch, especially among independents, has declined sharply—reaching just 48 percent, among the lowest levels in decades. While 69 percent of Republicans say the Court's ideological stance is "about right," 82 percent of Democrats believe the Court is "too conservative." The pollster reported a margin of error of ±4 percentage. The Context Justice Barrett's jurisprudence reflects a commitment to originalism and textualism—interpretative methods closely associated with the conservative legal movement. In key rulings on abortion, executive authority, and agency deference, she has reinforced rather than moderated the court's conservative trajectory. Barrett's scholarly background sometimes leads to more technical legal reasoning, and while she occasionally diverges from her conservative peers in limited circumstances, these instances are rare and generally do not shift the outcome of major cases. The court's conservative majority has left a profound mark on landmark decisions involving abortion, gun rights, affirmative action, presidential immunity, and the power of federal agencies. In Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion after nearly 50 years. It expanded gun rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen (2022) and most recently, in Trump vs. United States (2024), it recognized broad presidential immunity for official acts—ruling in Trump's favor. In Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard and its companion case against the University of North Carolina (2023), the Court dismantled race-conscious college admissions policies. And in Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo (2024), the Court effectively overturned the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year precedent that had granted deference to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws. This decision, along with a companion ruling limiting agencies' authority to enforce regulations in their own administrative courts, signals a broader effort to curtail the power of the executive branch. What People Are Saying Professor Harold Krent of Chicago-Kent College of Law said in a July 2025 interview with Bloomberg Law's June Grasso, Barrett has largely sided with the Court's conservative majority. "No, it doesn't surprise me at all," Krent said when asked about Barrett's high rate of voting with the majority. "Obviously, those three justices—Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—wield a lot of the power on this current court, and they will do so for the foreseeable future." Krent noted that the Court "continues to lean conservative" and that its ideological center has shifted further to the right, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, often considered a pivotal vote, has effectively become the Court's "median justice." President Doanld Trump, responding to a question in June about recent backlash that Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has received from some of his MAGA supporters critical of her recent remarks from the bench on the Trump administration's bid to end birthright citizenship, said: "I just have great respect for her. I always have. And her decision was brilliantly written today, from all accounts." White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields told CNN in statement in June: "President Trump will always stand with the U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the Democrat Party, which, if given the opportunity, would pack the court, ultimately undermining its integrity. The President may disagree with the Court and some of its rulings, but he will always respect its foundational role."
Kuwait Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Kuwait Times
In California strawberry fields, immigration raids sow fear
Farmers warn raids could hurt businesses, threaten food supply OXNARD, California: Flor, a Mexican migrant, picks strawberries in the agricultural town of Oxnard, but immigration roundups in recent weeks have infused the farmworker community in the strawberry capital of California with stress and fear. Flor said the raids are taking a toll on the farmworkers' children, who fear that their parents will be detained and deported and some are depressed. Flor, who has a permit to work in the fields, is a single mother of three US citizen daughters and when she picks them up in the afternoon she feels a palpable sense of relief. 'It hurts my soul that every time I leave the house they say, 'Mommy, be careful because they can catch you and they can send you to Mexico and we will have to stay here without you,'' said Flor, who asked that only her first name be used. 'You arrive home and the girls say, 'Ay Mommy, you arrived and immigration didn't take you.' It is very sad to see that our children are worried.' President Donald Trump has increased immigration enforcement since taking office in January, seeking to deport record numbers of immigrants in the US illegally. Farmers, who depend heavily on immigrant labor, have warned raids could damage their businesses and threaten the US food supply. Trump has said in recent weeks that he would roll out a program that would allow farmers to keep some workers, but the White House has not yet put forward any plan. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Tuesday that there would be 'no amnesty.' The Trump administration has arrested twice as many alleged immigration offenders as last year, but the number of farm workers specifically remains unclear. An immigration raid at marijuana farms near Los Angeles on Thursday prompted protests. Many Oxnard residents have not left their houses for three or four weeks and some simply don't show up for work, Flor said. 'It is really sad to see,' Flor said. 'We have senior citizens who work with us and when they see immigration passing where we are working , they begin to cry because of how fearful they are. They have been here many years and they fear they could be sent to their home countries. Their lives are here.' Flor has little hope that the circumstances will improve. 'The only hope we have is that the president touches his heart and does an immigration reform,' she said. The president of the United Farm Workers union, Teresa Romero, said they are working on organizing workers so they 'really stick together' as the fear persists. 'What the administration wants to do is deport this experienced workforce that has been working in agriculture for decades. They know exactly what to do, how to do it,' Romero said.A White House official told Reuters that Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump's immigration agenda, decided in January not to heavily target farms because the workers would be difficult to replace. When asked on CNN's 'State of the Union' on Sunday about people afraid of possible arrest even if they have legal immigration status, Trump's border czar Tom Homan was unapologetic about the crackdown.'It's not OK to enter this country illegally. It's a crime,' Homan said. 'But legal aliens and US citizens should not be afraid that they're going to be swept up in the raid(s).' The US Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for farmworkers get up at around 4 am local time (1100 GMT) and then wake up their children, who Flor says are suffering with the roundups. 'It is sad to see our community suffering so much. We are just workers who came for a dream, the dream we had for our children,' Flor daughters are 10, 7, and 2 - and the 10-year-old wants to be a police officer. 'And it breaks my heart that she might not fulfill her dream because they detain us and send us to Mexico,' Flor said. 'It makes me very sad to see how many children are being separated from their parents.'While some politicians in California have been outspoken about the immigration raids, Flor said they have not come out to the fields or come to learn about the workers' plight. 'I would like to invite all the politicians to come and see how we work on the farms so they can get to know our story and our lives,' said Flor. 'So they can see the needs we have.' Romero said they are working with representatives in Congress on a legislative bill called the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, which would protect the workers and has the support of at least 30 Republicans. Democratic Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California has introduced the bill to Congress, but it may not pass until the next Congress takes over in 2027. 'We are not going to give up,' said Romero. 'Si se puede (yes we can).' Flor earns about $2,000 a month, a salary that often does not go far enough. She pays $1,250 for rent each month and pays the nanny that helps care for the girls $250 per week. Sometimes, she doesn't have enough food for the children. She also says the back-breaking harvest work means she cannot spend enough time with her children. 'My work also means that I cannot dedicate enough time to my children because the work is very tough, we are crouched down all day and we lift 20 pounds every few minutes in the boxes,' Flor said. Romero said she has talked to some of the children affected by the raids. 'I have talked to children of people who have been deported and all they say is 'I want Daddy back,'' she said. 'It is affecting children who are US citizens and who do not deserve to be growing up with the fear they are growing up with now,' Romero added. 'Unless we get this bill done, this is what is going to continue to happen to these families and communities.' – Reuters
