Latest news with #Texas-led
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Lone Star State — and Trump — versus BlackRock
The Trump administration has waded into a politically charged Texas-led legal fight to dilute US financial giants' alleged influence over corporate America. Last week, the US Justice Department and the US Federal Trade Commission filed a joint "statement of interest" siding with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and 10 other Republican-led states in an antitrust case against trillion-dollar asset managers BlackRock (BLK) and its rivals State Street (STT) and Vanguard. The charge: Using their substantial stock holdings, BlackRock and its rival financial firms coordinated a "left-wing ideological" attack on US coal companies, pressuring coal producers Arch Coal, Black Hills, and Peabody to cut coal production in the South Powder River Basin and thermal coal markets, the DOJ and FTC said in the court filing. The decreased output, they said, harmed US consumers by artificially inflating energy prices. "Carbon reduction is no more a defense to the conduct alleged here than it would be to price fixing among airlines that reduced the number of carbon-emitting flights," the DOJ and FTC said in the statement supporting the states' claims. The states allege that the financial firms agreed to reduce output through commitments to carbon-reduction organizations Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative and Climate Action 100+. They also say disclosures from the defendants and public statements show that they engaged directly with coal company executives in efforts to influence production levels, and they used their voting power when engagement fell short of meeting those goals. As large yet minority shareholders, the complaint claims, the defendants have more influence than their formal equity share. The actions extend beyond shareholder advocacy and passive investing by furthering their own "green energy" or net-zero goals, rather than the goals of the coal corporations, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the challengers claim. The agencies' effort to have the administration's perspective considered in the case, despite not being a party to the dispute, has drawn criticism from the defendants and others. On Wednesday, Campaign for Accountability (CfA), a nonpartisan nonprofit watchdog organization, accused the administration of targeting the money managers for political rather than law enforcement reasons. The group filed a Freedom of Information Act Request asking the agencies to disclose communications underlying their decision to weigh in on the case. CfA was co-founded in 2015 by Anne Weismann, former head counsel for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "This case isn't about antitrust law, but about conservative opposition to even recognizing the risks of climate change," CfA executive director Michelle Kuppersmith said. "Americans deserve to know who is influencing the FTC to use its antitrust authority to attack political opponents." Meanwhile, Derek Mountford, an antitrust partner at Gunster, said the lawsuit's rhetoric also signals political motivation. But, he added, it could ultimately answer an unsettled antitrust question over how competition law applies to the actions of asset managers with significant ownership interests in competing companies. Should asset managers and index fund providers, for example, be treated differently under the law than individuals and businesses that offer products and services and control multiple firms within a singular market? "If one individual owns a significant interest in three competing companies, alarm bells start going off in your head that there could be some anticompetitive conduct going on," Mountford said. Although the BlackRock scenario isn't as cut and dried, he said, concerns have been bubbling about the competitive role that institutional shareholders are allowed to play, compared to companies and suppliers that can more directly influence market competition. "This case is going to represent a much clearer answer to that question than I think we've gotten in any other case of its kind," Mountford said. BlackRock asked for a judge to dismiss the case and accused the administration of trying to "re-write" antitrust law under an "absurd" theory that the coal companies conspired with them to reduce production outputs. "Forcing asset managers to divest from coal companies will harm their ability to access capital and invest in their businesses and employees, likely leading to higher energy prices," the company said in a statement. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink made a series of disengagements from the company's environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives as bipartisan concerns spread over the financial giant's power to sway US markets. Fink publicly stated in June 2023 that he would cease using the politically sensitive acronym "ESG" because it had been "weaponized" by both the ideological right and the left. In January, before President Trump took office, the financial giant cut ties with UN-backed Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAM), an environmental advocacy group that pledged net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The administration's legal filing came roughly six months after a GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee issued a report accusing the three money managers of using their financial clout to force US coal companies to "decarbonize" and reach net zero. According to the report, the money managers forced coal companies to disclose and reduce carbon emissions through negotiations, stockholder proxy resolutions, and the replacement of directors at "recalcitrant companies." Democrats have also criticized the financial firms' outsized influence over US markets, but for different reasons. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), a vocal critic of the megamanagers' influence, described the group's stock ownership in 95% of S&P 500 (^GSPC) companies an "oligarchy." Sanders, along with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also criticized BlackRock for declining to use its weight to intervene in a coal mining labor dispute. Gunster's Mountford said the federal government's decision to weigh in on a state AG-initiated case is unusual but becoming increasingly more prevalent. "It's not something that courts have had to wrestle with, where you have the DOJ weighing in on these types of cases," he said. "It's a pretty new phenomenon, and it's one that Trump sort of pioneered ... and continued during the Biden administration." "I think," he added, "it's here to stay." Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed.
USA Today
12-03-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Will a Texas-led legal fight over gender dysphoria threaten disabled student protections?
Will a Texas-led legal fight over gender dysphoria threaten disabled student protections? Show Caption Hide Caption Cracker Barrel accused of refusing to serve special needs students 11 special education students and seven staff members from Maryland's Charles County Public Schools were refused service at a Waldorf Cracker Barrel during a community-based instruction outing. unbranded - Newsworthy Villanova University student Kaleigh Brendle has had low vision her entire young life. At her college in Pennsylvania and as a child growing up in New Jersey, she has used screen-reading technology that turns written documents or books into audio recordings and hardcover braille texts. To compensate for the longer time it takes to listen to passages being read aloud or in braille, she's been given extended time on exams. These accommodations – given to her through a federal disability protections law – have allowed her to attend and thrive in traditional classes with students who don't have a disability, she said. "Without a screen reader and braille, I would not be able to an have equitable education," Brendle said. "Braille is the ultimate equalizer. It has allowed me to learn literacy and keep up with my peers." Now, upwards of one million students with disabilities like Brendle who receive assistance in schools could be affected by a legal challenge to that same law − Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Known as 504 plans, the popular system for accommodating students in school are geared for kids who do qualify for help under disability plans known as IEPs, or Individualized Education Programs. The more than 50-year-old law requires federally funded schools to offer learning plans and accommodations to students with disabilities. The law also mandates protections from discrimination for Americans with disabilities in federally funded workplaces, hospitals and other agencies. In Sept. 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, filed Texas v. Becerra, leading a coalition of 17 Republican state attorneys general against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services after the Biden administration's Office of Civil Rights finalized a new rule under Section 504 last year. They've argued in their lawsuit that Section 504 is "unconstitutional" as it stands and they want to see the law re-evaluated in federal court and the repeal of key changes in the new regulations, which include protections for people who experience gender dysphoria and a clarified requirement for states to provide accommodations for people with disabilities in "the most integrated setting." The most integrated settings in schools under Section 504 are often traditional classrooms with students who don't have disabilities. The alternative is an "institutionalized," or isolated setting, which could be a classroom or school away from their peers. In a recent joint status report, the Republican state attorneys general, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. clarified they don't want to see the law entirely overturned or declared unconstitutional "on its face" – but they are concerned about the way the law is enforced. Despite the new development in the case, some disability experts say the lawsuit poses a serious threat to the federal disabilities law and the outcome of the case could still lead to the law getting overturned. Shira Wakschlag, a senior director of legal advocacy and general counsel of a national nonprofit organization that serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities called The Arc, says the lawsuit is "still very much alive" because it has not been amended or withdrawn. The original lawsuit stating Section 504 is "unconstitutional" is what's before the judge in the case – sparking worry, she said. Brendle worries most about the idea of students with disabilities being separated from their peers in traditional classrooms. "The 17 states said they'd never wanted to make all of 504 unconstitutional – even though that was written in their complaint," Brendle. "They also said that the only aspects they want to repeal have to do with integration and protecting people from being placed in institutions. No disabled person should be forced to live in an 'institution.'" Iowa joins suit over: Biden gender dysphoria rule, alarming parents with disabled children What is Section 504? How could a child be affected? Section 504 is a federal law that protects people with disabilities from discrimination in federally funded institutions, including schools. About 1.6 million students with disabilities were served under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act during the 2020-21 school year, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Education. Public schools and some private schools receive funding from the U.S. Department of Education to support students with disabilities. These students are guaranteed the right to a "free, appropriate public education" through the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act broadens those protections. The law guarantees a 504 plan for kids who need one at federally funded schools. The accommodation plans are for students with a wide range of disabilities who need specific tools and help to learn equally to their peers in integrated classrooms, said Daniel Van Sant, director of disability policy for the Harkin Institute for Public Policy & Citizen Engagement. Those tools can include noise-cancelling headphones for students to stay focused, a desk at the height of a wheelchair or a medical plan for a student who has an allergic reaction. One of the disabilities protected by Section 504 is attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD. Kids with ADHD make up a large portion of those with 504 accommodation plans, which are needed to help them focus and complete schoolwork in an integrated classroom setting, said Jeffrey Katz, a clinical psychologist and co-chair of the public policy committee for the organization Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, or CHADD. "Most kids with ADHD need help with organization, management plans that help them with talking out or modifying their work because kids with ADHD have trouble persisting with effort," he said. "All of these things can be done in a classroom." The legal requirement also forces teachers to follow student-specific plans to help them thrive in their classes and prevents students with disabilities from being segregated from their peers without disabilities, Katz said. What does the lawsuit say? The state attorneys general object to the addition of gender dysphoria to the list of student disabilities protected under Section 504. Gender dysphoria is the distress a person can feel when their gender identity doesn't match their sex assigned at birth. (LGBTQ+ rights advocates have long said gender dysphoria is a recognized medical condition that should be considered a disability under Section 504.) The states also oppose a part of the new rule that clarifies a long-standing stipulation of the rule that states must provide services for people with disabilities in the most integrated settings possible. In schools, that would mean kids with disabilities are required under the law to be served in traditional classrooms with students without disabilities. More broadly, they argue HHS under the Biden administration violated the Administrative Procedures Act and the Constitution's Spending Clause by placing new requirements on federal grants for people with disabilities, including students. The original lawsuit also states they want a judge to evaluate whether Section 504 as it stands and the regulation of the law is constitutional. Following the outcry from disability rights advocates and parents of students with disabilities, the coalition of state attorneys general have clarified in a court document they do not want to see the law removed in part or as a whole, but that the regulations of the law as it stands are too restrictive on states and unconstitutional as applied. On Feb. 19, the plaintiffs filed the joint status report in the U.S. District Court in Texas after President Donald Trump in January signed an executive order stating that agencies shall not 'promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology," including gender dysphoria. They said in the court document that they are evaluating their position in the lawsuit based on this move. The state attorneys general suing include those from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. But the potential axing of protections for some people experiencing gender dysphoria under the law doesn't cover all of the states' worries. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach has said he joined the lawsuit because of the added inclusion of gender dysphoria under Section 504. On the other hand, Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor has said he's concerned that the "integrated setting" requirement will increase costs on states and burdens Medicaid providers. "From Alaska's perspective, the gender dysphoria is a very small piece of the lawsuit," said Patty Sullivan, a spokesperson from the Alaska Department of Law, in an email to USA TODAY. "Our concerns have been and continue to be on the adverse impacts this rule will have on the provision of services to people with severe disabilities and on state programs." U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge James Wesley Hendrix is currently assigned to the case. Paxton's office and several of the other state attorneys general named in the complaint did not respond to inquiries about the lawsuit from USA TODAY. Sullivan, the spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Law, pointed to an op-ed written by Alaska State Attorney General Treg Taylor for The Alaska Beacon. In the article, Taylor said the changes made to Section 504 have jeopardized "the continued viability of state programs and services and are impossible for any state to fully comply with." "In fact, the new regulation is likely to undermine the State's ability to provide ongoing service and supports,' Taylor wrote. "It requires states to redesign their service delivery systems to conform to newly imagined and vaguely defined requirements, regardless of the cost or impact to the state." Does Project 2025 eliminate IEPs? Not explicitly, but experts are wary Inside and beyond the classroom: 'This will touch millions of disabled children' Despite her vision impairment, Brendle has been able to succeed academically and socially in her schooling career – at least up until this point. But she worries she and other college students will not continue to prosper in schools and whether it will be more difficult to secure jobs if Section 504 is removed from federal law. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, another disabilities protections law, mandates student learning adjustments on learning assessments and goals. But Section 504 goes further to specify that people with disabilities must be given the tools to be thrive in integrated settings in federally-funded schools, workplaces and other agencies and organizations, said Carrie Gillispie, a senior policy analyst with the education policy program at national nonpartisan think tank New America. Brendle said she's heard of many people abundantly qualified for their job but denied that job just on the basis of a disability. She fears that reality could worsen. "This will touch millions of disabled children in some capacity," Brendle said. Contact Kayla Jimenez at kjimenez@ Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez.
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
AG Hilgers: Nebraska won't seek to end fed Section 504 disability protections
Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers. June 30, 2023. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) LINCOLN — The Nebraska Attorney General's Office said this week that AG Mike Hilgers would 'reevaluate Nebraska's involvement' in a lawsuit against a Biden-era rule if it threatens federal disability protections. The September lawsuit, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Republican attorneys general from 16 other states, including Nebraska, specifically targets a May 2024 rule from the former Biden administration that lists 'gender dysphoria' as a covered disability under Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act. Gender dysphoria, as defined in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is the psychological distress someone has when their gender identity doesn't match their sex at birth. Original complaint (Sept. 26) Joint status update (Feb. 19) The Texas-led lawsuit argues the federal rule exceeds statutory authority, is 'arbitrary and capricious' and unconstitutional. A fourth argument argues Section 504 as a whole is unconstitutional. The rule offers services to thousands of Nebraskans, including students who are offered special education at a different threshold than specific individualized education programs (IEPs). Statements from the Nebraska Attorney General's Office last week and as recent as Thursday said Hilgers joined the lawsuit against an effort to 'hijack' the federal protections and impose 'transgender ideology' across Nebraska. Republican state AGs seek to clarify stance on disability law The lawsuit argues that the final rule would increase costs and compliance requirements on Nebraska under Medicaid and employment, which could risk access to federal funding. 'The Final Rule imposes severe and irreparable harm on Nebraska by imposing various costs and attendant risks of administrative proceedings, investigations, lawsuits and compliance measures, as well as by creating a conflict between state laws and policies and federal regulation,' the September lawsuit states. On Wednesday, the attorneys general filed a 'joint status report' to address President Donald Trump's administration and multiple Trump executive orders related to sex and gender, as well as the confirmation of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. 'Plaintiffs clarify that they have never moved — and do not plan to move — the court to declare to enjoin Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act … as unconstitutional on its face,' the latest filing states. 'Plaintiffs have not sought and do not seek to enjoin the disbursement of funds from the [HHS] Department on the basis that the statute is unconstitutional.' The AGs said Kennedy and his department are continuing to evaluate their position as Trump ordered federal agencies to not 'promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology.' GOP-led lawsuit that could dismantle disability protections draws public backlash The Arc of Nebraska, which advocates for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, testified against Hilgers' office budget over concerns about his participation in the lawsuit. In a Thursday Facebook post, the organization said Hilgers clarified he would not move forward with the case if it eliminated Section 504, which the state AG's Office verified. The Nebraska AG's Office statement reads: 'The primary purpose of the complaint is not to challenge Section 504 or threaten funding for Nebraskans with disabilities. The Attorney General will reevaluate Nebraska's involvement or take other appropriate action if the legal protection and funding provided by Section 504 becomes threatened.' The Arc of Nebraska post states that 'while this isn't everything we want to see, it is a significant step forward.' Leaders of the Nebraska State Education Association also met with Hilgers, who made similar commitments, the organization said in a Wednesday email to teachers statewide. 'NSEA will continue to monitor the situation and remains committed to preserving and expanding services for students with disabilities,' the email stated. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
