Sign up today

Sign up today
Softphone APP for Android &IOS

RG Richardson Communications News

I am a business economist with interests in international trade worldwide through politics, money, banking and VOIP Communications. The author of RG Richardson City Guides has over 300 guides, including restaurants and finance.

eComTechnology Posts

Amazon’s $2.5 billion settlement over Prime subscriptions: When will payments be sent out?

Amazon’s $2.5 billion settlement over Prime subscriptions: When will payments be sent out? Amazon’s $2.5 billion settlement over Prime subsc...

Trump Media Whistleblower Blasts Company for Outsourcing Jobs Abroad as Betrayal of “America First”

Trump Media Whistleblower Blasts Company for Outsourcing Jobs Abroad as Betrayal of “America First”

Trump Media Whistleblower Blasts Company for Outsourcing Jobs Abroad as Betrayal of “America First”

by Justin Elliott, Robert Faturechi and Alex Mierjeski

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

An internal whistleblower complaint at Trump Media calls for CEO Devin Nunes to be fired, alleging he has “severely” mismanaged the company and opened it to “substantial risk of legal action” from regulators, according to a copy reviewed by ProPublica.

The letter also says that former President Donald Trump’s company is hiring “America Last” — alleging that Nunes imposed a directive to hire only foreign contractors at the expense of “American workers who are deeply committed to our mission.”

“This approach not only contradicts the America First principles we stand for but also raises concerns about the quality, dedication, and alignment of our workforce with our core values,” the letter says.

Trump’s promise to “stop outsourcing” and “punish” companies that send jobs abroad has been a centerpiece of his political career, including his current campaign for president.

The letter also accuses Nunes, a former Republican congressman, of hiring unqualified members of his inner circle and being dishonest with employees at the company, which runs the social media platform Truth Social.

ProPublica reported this month that several executives and staffers had been forced out of the company, and people involved with Trump Media believed the ousters were retaliation in the wake of a whistleblower complaint. The complaint has been the subject of intense interest among former employees, according to interviews and records of communications among former employees. Several people with knowledge of the company had told ProPublica the concerns revolve around alleged mismanagement by Nunes.

No specific employee signed the letter that was reviewed by ProPublica. It claims to represent “over half” of the company’s staff, including “multiple department heads and C-level officers.” The copy reviewed by ProPublica has been circulating among people connected to the company, and it’s unclear whether there are any differences between it and the version recently submitted to Trump Media’s board.

The copy reviewed by ProPublica is addressed to the audit committee of the board and says it was submitted through the company’s anonymous whistleblower channel.

Trump Media declined to answer detailed questions about the whistleblower complaint or provide comment from the board. But the company’s lawyer in a letter accused ProPublica of writing another in a “series of hit pieces” and “once again basing it upon unreliable sources, attempting to paint a picture of internal turmoil.”

In a previous statement, the company’s lawyer said in a letter that Trump Media “strictly adheres to all laws and applicable regulations.”

Nunes and the Trump campaign did not respond to questions.

The whistleblower complaint paints a picture of turmoil and profound problems in the company at a time when Trump Media’s stock has soared nearly 150% in less than a month, pushing the company’s market value to roughly $6 billion. Even though Truth Social generates virtually no revenue, the company’s stock has attracted enormous interest from Trump fans and speculators.

The stock’s rally has generated a windfall, at least on paper, for Trump, whose majority ownership stake in the company is now worth more than $3 billion. (He recently said he has no plans to sell.)

Among the company’s board members are Trump’s son Don Jr. and two of his former cabinet members: Robert Lighthizer, the former U.S. trade representative, and Linda McMahon, who headed the Small Business Administration and is a major donor and current co-chair of Trump’s transition planning committee.

After the ProPublica story was published this month, an attorney representing Trump Media, Jason Greaves of Binnall Law Group, sent ProPublica a letter demanding an “immediate retraction.” The letter described the article as “false and defamatory” but provided no evidence showing anything in the story was inaccurate.

Following the whistleblower complaint to the board, the company enlisted an outside lawyer to investigate and interview staffers, a person with knowledge of the company had told ProPublica. It’s not clear what the result of that review was or whether it’s ongoing. Governance experts told ProPublica that company boards have a duty to address red flags that suggest corporate wrongdoing.

In perhaps the most serious charge, the letter alleges that Nunes’ “missteps have put us at substantial risk of legal action with our regulators, vendors, shareholders, and employees, and have already resulted in litigation.”

The letter does not give examples of what Nunes has done that could risk action by regulators.

The letter says that not only is Trump Media understaffed — with just “20 technical employees” — but that Nunes has blocked the hiring of Americans. LinkedIn profiles and an invoice obtained by ProPublica show about half a dozen people listed as based in the Balkans doing work for Trump Media, in tasks including software engineering and customer support.

The front page of Truth Social contains the tagline: “Proudly made in the United States of America. 🇺🇸”

The whistleblower letter portrays Nunes, who left a two-decade career as a California congressman in 2022 to become CEO of Trump Media, as ill-equipped to run a tech company.

“Mr. Nunes has consistently lied, targeted employees, and mishandled company resources by placing critical functions in the hands of unqualified members of his inner circle,” it says.

The letter doesn’t give examples of Nunes’ alleged lies or identify the members of his inner circle.

The tone of the letter is more in sorrow than in anger.

“We have approached this with patience, kindness, and grace, hoping for improvement, but the situation has only deteriorated,” the letter states, adding, “We remain fully committed to the mission of restoring and defending free speech on social media.”

Another concern in the letter is about money. Employees were pressured to sell their shares of the company at $20 before it went public, leaving them without a stake in the enterprise and costing them financially, according to the letter. The company’s stock was briefly trading at more than three times that price after it went public in March. After dipping as low as $12 in September, it closed this week above $29.

The letter includes a warning: If the board does not act, the problems could spill into public view and Trump Media could be gravely damaged.

“The more these internal failures — ranging from leadership mismanagement and broken promises to legal vulnerabilities — remain unaddressed, the more likely they are to leak out, likely triggering a PR crisis,” the letter says. “If these issues become public, they will severely tarnish Truth Social’s reputation, erode public trust, and draw negative media attention.”

Do you have any information about Trump Media that we should know? Justin Elliott can be reached by email at justin@propublica.org or by Signal or WhatsApp at 774-826-6240. Robert Faturechi can be reached by email at robert.faturechi@propublica.org and by Signal or WhatsApp at 213-271-7217.

Battle Over Ballot Drop Boxes

Battle Over Ballot Drop Boxes Rages On in Wisconsin as Officials Put Them at Center of Election Integrity Debate

by Megan O’Matz

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

They are squat, stationary and seemingly innocuous. But ever since the high drama of the 2020 presidential election, humble drop boxes have been more than a receptacle of absentee ballots; they’ve morphed into a vessel for emotion, suspicion and even conspiracy theories.

In the battleground state of Wisconsin, especially, the mere presence of these sidewalk containers has inspired political activists and community leaders to plot against them, to call on people to watch them around the clock and even to hijack them.

They’ve been the subject of two state Supreme Court decisions, as well as legal memos, local council deliberations, press conferences and much hand-wringing.

Wausau Mayor Doug Diny was so leery of the box outside City Hall that he absconded with it on a Sunday in September, isolating it in his office. It had not yet been secured to the ground, he said, and so he wanted to keep it safe. The escapade was met with a backlash but also won the mayor some admirers online before he returned it.

“COURAGE IS CONTAGIOUS! WELL DONE SIR!” one person wrote on the conservative social media site Gettr.

As early voting for the November election begins and Wisconsinites receive their absentee ballots, they have choices on how to return them. Mail them. Deliver them in person to the municipal clerk. Or, in some communities, deposit them in a drop box, typically located outside a municipal building, library, community center or fire station.

Though election experts say the choices are designed to make voting a simple act, the use of drop boxes has been anything but uncomplicated since the 2020 election, when receptacles in Wisconsin and around the country became flash points for baseless conspiracy theories of election fraud. A discredited, but popular, documentary — “2000 Mules” — linked them to ballot stuffing, while a backlash grew over nonprofit funding that helped clerks make voting easier through a variety of measures, including drop boxes.

The movie’s distributor, Salem Media Group Inc., removed it from circulation in May and, in response to a lawsuit, issued a public apology to a Georgia voter for falsely depicting him as having voted illegally. A federal judge dismissed Salem Media Group as a defendant, but the litigation is proceeding against the filmmaker and others.

With all that fuss in the background, Wisconsin’s conservative-leaning Supreme Court outlawed the boxes in 2022. But then this summer, with the court now controlled by liberals, justices ruled them lawful, determining that municipal clerks could offer secure drop boxes in their communities if they wished.

The court’s latest ruling made clear it’s up to each municipal clerk’s discretion whether to offer drop boxes for voters. But the decision has done little to change minds about the boxes or end any confusion about whether they’re a boon to democracy or a tool for chicanery.

This year, four of Wisconsin’s largest cities are using drop boxes — Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay and Racine. But numerous locales that offered drop boxes in 2020, including Kenosha, the fourth-largest city in the state, have determined they will not this year.

Voters have been getting mixed messages from right-wing activists and politicians about whether to use drop boxes, as the GOP continues to sow distrust in elections while, at the same time, urging supporters to vote early — by any means.

“Look, I’m not a fan of drop boxes, as is no great surprise, but if you have to have them, this is not a bad situation,” Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote, which has fostered doubt about election integrity and helped inspire “2000 Mules,” said on a video posted to social media on Sept. 30. It showed her giving a brief tour of a drop box in Madison, Wisconsin’s capital and a bastion of Democrats.

With the camera trained on one of the boxes, Engelbrecht extolled that “the slot is really small, so that’s a good thing,” and that “most of these drop boxes appear to be close to fire stations,” which she also declared a good thing. About a week later, she wrote in a newsletter that True the Vote had collected exact drop box locations statewide and was working to arrange livestream video feeds of them.

Unlike in 2020 when Trump warned against the use of absentee ballots, this year he is urging supporters to “swamp the vote.” And the Wisconsin Republican Party is not discouraging voters from using ballot drop boxes if they are available in their community and are secure.

Still, Wisconsin’s GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate, Eric Hovde, has urged citizen surveillance brigades to watch the boxes. “Who’s watching to see how many illegal ballots are being stuffed?” Hovde told supporters in July, according to a recording of his remarks obtained by The Washington Post. “Look, we’re probably going to have to have — make sure that there’s somebody standing by a drop box everywhere.”

Most boxes have security cameras trained on them. Those surveillance tapes could be used as purported evidence in legal cases if Trump loses on Nov. 5.

Already, Engelbrecht has filed a public records request with the Dane County Clerk’s Office for “copies of video recordings from security cameras used to surveil all exterior and interior ballot drop boxes in Dane County for the November 2024 Election.” The county, whose seat is Madison, does not have access to camera footage, which is kept by municipalities, the county clerk told ProPublica.

After this year’s state Supreme Court ruling allowing the drop boxes, the Wisconsin Elections Commission issued guidance to the state’s roughly 1,800 municipal clerks recommending more than a dozen security practices related to the boxes.

The instructions include that they be “affixed to the ground or the side of the building,” “sturdy enough to withstand the elements,” “located in a well-lit area,” “equipped with unique locks or seals” and “emptied often.”

The commission recommended that clerks keep a record of the times and dates of retrieval, number of ballots retrieved and the names of the people doing the retrieving.

It also referred clerks to federal guidelines.

But even with updated guidelines in place and ballot harvesting prohibited in Wisconsin (individuals can only submit their own ballot, unless helping a disabled person), concerns persist.

In August in Dodge County, some 60 miles northwest of Milwaukee, the sheriff, Dale Schmidt, emailed three town clerks, telling them he had “serious concerns” about drop boxes, according to records obtained by the news site WisPolitics. “I strongly encourage you to avoid using a drop box,” he wrote. The sheriff asked the clerks numerous questions about the boxes, explaining that: “Even if set up the best way possible to avoid the potential for fraudulent activity, criminal activity many times finds ways to subvert even the best plans.”

Two of the clerks — from the towns of Ashippun and Beaver Dam — replied to the sheriff that they would not use them and the clerk from Hustisford told Wisconsin Public Radio that, while she received Schmidt’s email, the town board had already decided against using a drop box out of security concerns. In an email to ProPublica, Schmidt said, “No one was intimidated into choosing not to use the boxes and none of them had heartburn over not using them.”

Brittany Vulich, Wisconsin campaign manager for the nonpartisan voting rights group All Voting is Local, is bothered by how mayors, council members and other officials are seeking to influence these decisions. She notes that municipal clerks — the vast majority of whom are women — are the top election officials in each municipality.

“It’s the undermining of their authority. It’s the undermining of their office,” she said. “It’s the undermining of their autonomy to do their job and to make that decision on whether to use drop boxes or not. And that is what is very alarming.”

Other towns have also balked.

In the city of Brookfield, the Common Council took up a resolution Aug. 20 and voted 10-4 not to have a drop box after reviewing a memo by City Attorney Jenna Merten who found the recommended precautions burdensome.

“The guidance states that for unstaffed 24-hour ballot drop boxes, the City would need a video surveillance camera and storage of the video footage, as well as decals, extra keys and security seals,” she wrote. “Removing the ballots from the drop box would require at least two people and the completion of chain of custody logs.”

During the debate, Alderman Gary Mahkorn, an opponent of drop boxes, argued that they served a purpose during the COVID-19 pandemic but then “became a hugely political issue, and that’s what makes me want to, you know, puke in a way.” He worried that “the further we get away from people trusting our elections, the more our democracy is at stake.”

Instead of having drop boxes, the city will have extended voting hours, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., most weekdays during in-person absentee voting for the two weeks prior to the election.

In Wausau, the box that Diny took to his office is back, bolted to the ground and being used for early voting.

At first, Diny resisted pressure from the city clerk and members of the City Council to return it. The clerk, Kaitlyn Bernarde, reported the matter to the Marathon County District Attorney’s Office and the state elections commission. And Diny arranged to have the clerk reclaim it.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice is investigating. There have been no charges. Diny told ProPublica he believes he did nothing wrong, saying: “None of this was done in a nefarious, secret way.”

At a City Council meeting on Tuesday night, Diny attempted to force a vote on allocating additional funds for drop-box security. But the council showed no interest.

During the public comment period, residents both praised and lambasted the mayor. One local resident rose to say, “Arguing about a box is dumb.”

Milei's austerity seen pushing half of Argentina into poverty

Milei's austerity seen pushing half of Argentina into povertyBUENOS AIRES - Irma Casal, a 53-year-old in Buenos Aires, works three shifts as a garbage recycler, cardboard collector and bricklayer, but, like many Argentines at a time of rising poverty, she still struggles to make ends meet.

Interactive Economic Terms and Definitions

Let's face it. Economics is filled with terms that don't always make sense to the average person. Terms that sometimes mean what you think they mean, but sometimes not at all. Not even close.Let's face it.Let's face it. Economics is filled with terms that don't always make sense to the average person. Terms that sometimes mean what you think they mean, but sometimes not at all. Not even close. RG Richardson Interactive Economic eBook More ebooks at RG Richardson City Guide.com

Rafael Nadal, winner of 22 Grand Slam titles

Rafael Nadal, winner of 22 Grand Slam titles, to retire from tennis Nadal won Olympic gold and all 4 tennis Grand Slams, including 14 French Open championships Chris Iorfida · CBC News · Posted: Oct 10, 2024 3:05 AM PDT | Last Updated: 2 hours ago A cleanshaven man in athletic gear embraces a trophy while smiling widely. Spain's Rafael Nadal poses with the winning trophy after a victory in the men's singles final match against Austria's Dominic Thiem at the 2018 French Open tennis tournament in Paris in June 2018. Nadal announced Thursday he will retire from the sport at season's end. (Christophe Archambault/AFP/Getty Images) Social Sharing Rafael Nadal, one of tennis's greatest champions and the unquestioned clay court specialist of all time, announced Thursday he will retire from the sport at season's end. In an Instagram post, Nadal said he will bow out after representing Spain, the host of next month's Davis Cup finals. "It is a tough decision, one that has taken me time to make, but in this life, everything has a beginning and an end," Nadal said in the video post. "I believe it is the right time to put an end to a career that has been long and much more successful than I could have ever imagined." Nadal won 22 Grand Slam titles between 2005 and 2022, as well as an Olympic gold medal in singles at the 2008 Beijing Games and gold in doubles at the 2016 Rio Olympics. The indefatigable player from Mallorca with the formidable forehand won two Australian Open titles, two Wimbledon titles from the all-England Club, four U.S. Open wins and a whopping 14 championships on the clay courts of the French Open. Two-time Olympic champ Andy Murray to retire from tennis after Paris 2024 Canada to run back successful lineup for Davis Cup Final 8 in November Nadal's dominance in Paris is celebrated by a statue of him that stands near the main entrance to the grounds of Roland Garros and in the shadow of its main stadium, Court Philippe Chatrier. Nadal's career ledger includes 92 tournament wins on the men's tour, including five on Canadian hard courts between 2005 and 2019. Nadal, 38, thanked his wife Mery, extended family, coaches and tream throughout the years. The veteran player referenced a difficult past two seasons, which have been marred by injury. He underwent hip surgery, missed four consecutive major tournaments, and was eliminated in the first round at the French Open this year. Nadal expressed frustration with the questions about his future after that loss. "Every day I come here to answer whether it's my last game or not," he told reporters. "I can't spend every day analyzing whether it could be my last game or not. What can I say? It's not easy to play in this situation." WATCH l Highlights from Nadal's last Grand Slam win, in Paris: Nadal dominates Ruud in straight sets to win 14th title at Roland Garros 2 years ago Duration3:43 Spaniard Rafael Nadal defeated Norwegian Casper Ruud 6-3, 6-3, 6-0 in Paris to win his record-extending 22nd Grand Slam title. With Nadal's retirement, only Novak Djokovic will remain from the sport's so-called Big 4 on the men's circuit. Nadal, Djokovic, Roger Federer and Andy Murray accounted for all but two of the 40 Grand Slam championships played between 2004 and 2013. Djokovic has won a record 24 majors on the men's side, followed by Nadal and Switzerland's Federer with 20. There is a yawning gap before the next highest on the list, American Pete Sampras with 14 Grand Slam wins. Nod to his 'great rivals' The Nadal-Federer rivalry in particular has been hailed as one of the greatest in sport's history, with the players meeting 40 times, including in 24 tournament finals. Nadal thanked "my great rivals" in his retirement announcement. "I have spent many hours with them and lived many moments that I will remember for the rest of my life," he said. Two cleanshaven tennis players in headbands gather closely on the court, with one putting his arm around the other. Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, usually rivals, paired up as part of Team Europe at the Laver Cup at The O2 Arena on Sept. 23, 2022 in London. (Clive Brunskill/Getty Images for Laver Cup) Nadal came from a sporting family, and took up tennis under the tutelage of his uncle, Toni Nadal. "There was no let-up from Toni. No mercy," Nadal wrote in the 2011 autobiography Rafa, written with John Carlin. "I look back at the teenage Rafael and I am proud of him. He set a benchmark of endurance that served me as an example and as a reminder ... if you want something badly enough, no sacrifice is too great." While Nadal's career was filled with uncommon accolades and glory, he wrote in the same book that he contemplated pursuing a career in professional golf after a 2005 foot injury. Nadal made his first pro tennis tour appearance at 15. He struggled to communicate in English, working just as hard off the court to eventually learn the language. Spain will take to the courts in Malaga on Nov. 19 against Netherlands to begin the Davis Cup knockout stage, with Canada meeting Germany. Nadal has been part of four Davis Cup title wins for Spain, including in 2019 when they beat Canada in the final and he was named the top player of the tournament. Nadal's overall singles record in Davis Cup play is 29-1.

Trump Staffers support Harris

More than 100 former staffers and national security leaders from past Republican administrations endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday—adding to the growing list of Republicans speaking out against former President Donald Trump.The letter—released by the group Reagan, Bush, McCain & Romney Alumni for Harris—is signed by 111 former officials from those administrations as well as ex-Trump staffers like Miles Taylor, along with some former Republican members of Congress like former Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger. In addition to criticizing Trump’s national security record and “demonstrated chaotic and unethical behavior,” the letter condemned Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021. The letter comes after other notable members of George W. Bush’s administration—including former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez—endorsed Harris over Trump in recent weeks. Forbes has reached out to Trump’s campaign for comment.
Read More

Nature and wildlife: where B.C.’s political parties stand on key issues

Nature and wildlife: where B.C.’s political parties stand on key issuesA primitive rodent, with small eyes and ears and large front claws, makes its home in the Cascade mountains of southwestern B.C. Mountain beavers, which aren’t really beavers, spend most of their time underground — and their survival is at risk. Heavy forestry machinery compacts the deep soils where they burrow, presenting a key threat, along with urban development in the Fraser Valley. Just this year, the mountain beaver was added to the provincial “blue list.” B.C.’s blue list includes species particularly vulnerable to human impacts. If known threats are not addressed, blue-listed species could one day become red-listed, meaning they are endangered, threatened or no longer found in the province. B.C.’s red list includes spotted owls, southern mountain caribou and southern resident killer whales. Altogether, 1,952 species and ecosystems are officially at some risk of extinction in the province, according to the B.C. government’s conservation data centre.

Affordable Housing Squeezed as Climate Hits Insurance Market

Affordable Housing Squeezed as Climate Hits Insurance MarketRight across North America, sky high insurance rates are straining affordable housing providers and the millions who depend on them for shelter, while pushing new housing developments and retrofits out of reach. Possibly another excuse for price gouging?

Texas’ Third-Largest County, the Far Right’s Vision

In
for Local Governing Has Come to Life

by Robert Downen, The Texas Tribune, and Jeremy Schwartz, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Reporting Highlights

  • No Compromise: Tim O’Hare’s leadership in Tarrant County, Texas, gives a glimpse of far-right priorities: cutting programs for at-risk youth, targeting elections and stifling dissent.
  • The Last Battleground: Tarrant County, home to 2.2 million people and the city of Fort Worth, is the most significant political battleground between Republicans and Democrats in Texas.
  • Winning Elections: O’Hare has pushed to end free bus rides to the polls for poor residents and close polling locations on college campuses, which GOP leaders said would help the party.

These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

Over the past two decades, Tim O’Hare methodically amassed power in North Texas as he pushed incendiary policies such as banning undocumented immigrants from renting homes and vilifying school curriculum that encouraged students to embrace diversity.

He rode a wave of conservative resentment, leaping from City Council member of Farmers Branch, a suburb north of Dallas, in 2005 to its mayor to the leader of the Tarrant County Republican Party.

Three years ago, O’Hare sought his highest political office yet, running for the top elected position in the nation’s 15th-largest county, which is home to Fort Worth. Backed by influential evangelical churches and money from powerful oil industry billionaires, O’Hare promised voters he would weed out “diversity inclusion nonsense” and accused some Democrats of hating America. His win in November 2022 gave the GOP’s far right new sway over the Tarrant County Commissioners Court, turning a government that once prided itself on bipartisanship into a new front of the culture war.

“I was not looking to do this at all, but they came after our police,” he said in his victory speech on election night. “They came after our schools. They came after our country. They came after our churches.”

In Texas and across the country, far-right candidates have won control of school boards, swiftly banning books, halting diversity efforts and altering curricula that do not align with their beliefs. O’Hare’s election in Tarrant County, however, takes the battle from the schoolhouse to county government, offering a rare look at what happens when hard-liners win the majority and exert their influence over municipal affairs in a closely divided county.

Since he was elected county judge — a position similar to that of mayor in a city — O’Hare has pushed his agenda with an uncompromising approach. He has led efforts to cut funding to nonprofits that work with at-risk children, citing their views on racial inequality and LGBTQ+ rights. And he has pushed election law changes that local Republican leaders said would favor them.

O’Hare’s rise in Tarrant County has come as he and his allies continue to align with once-fringe figures while targeting private citizens with whom they disagree politically. In July, O’Hare had a local pastor removed from a public meeting for speaking eight seconds over his allotted time. Days later, O’Hare appeared onstage at a conference that urged attendees to resist a Democratic campaign to “rid the earth of the white race” and embrace Christian nationalism. The agenda prompted some right-wing Republicans to condemn or pull out of the event.

“We’re seeing a shift of what conservatism looks like, and at the lower levels, they’re testing how extreme it can get,” said Robert Futrell, a sociologist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas who studies political extremism. “The goal is to capture local Republican Party infrastructure and positions and own the party, turning it to more extremist goals.”

Frequently, those aims include pushing back against broader LGBTQ+ acceptance, downplaying the nation’s history of racism and the lingering disparities caused by it, stemming immigration, and falsely claiming that America was founded as a Christian nation and that its laws and institutions should thus reflect conservative evangelical beliefs.

O’Hare declined multiple interview requests and did not answer detailed lists of questions emailed to him. His spokesperson instead touted a list of eight accomplishments, including cutting county spending and lowering local property tax rates.

With 2.2 million people, Tarrant County is Texas’ most significant remaining battleground for Democrats and Republicans. When the county voted for Beto O’Rourke for U.S. Senate in 2018 and Joe Biden for president in 2020, many political observers suspected the end was nigh for the era of Republican dominance in the purple county.

Two years later, voters elected the most hard-line Tarrant County leader in decades. After two years under O’Hare’s leadership, voters in November will decide two races between Republican allies of O’Hare and their Democratic opponents. The election of both Democrats would put O’Hare into the minority.

The changes in county leadership have been dramatic, said O’Hare’s Republican predecessor, Glen Whitley, who served as Tarrant County judge from 2007 until retiring in 2022. Whitley said O’Hare has implanted an “us vs. them” ideology that has increasingly been mainstreamed on the right.

“They no longer feel like they have to compromise,” said Whitley, who recently endorsed Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris for president and U.S. Rep. Colin Allred of Texas in the U.S. Senate race. “You either vote with these people 100% of the time, or you’re their enemy.”

Political Rise

In 2005, when O’Hare initially ran unopposed for a seat on the City Council in Farmers Branch, a small town just outside of Tarrant County, his platform included plans to revitalize the public library and bring in new restaurants. In 2006, however, O’Hare began taking positions that were outside of the Republican mainstream at the time. He pushed for the diversifying town to declare English its official language, ban landlords from renting to residents without proof of citizenship, and stop publishing public materials in Spanish.

“The reason I got on the City Council was because I saw our property values declining or increasing at a level that was below the rate of inflation,” O’Hare said at the time. “When that happens, people move out of our neighborhoods, and what I would call less desirable people move into the neighborhoods, people who don’t value education, people who don’t value taking care of their properties.”

Hispanic residents mobilized and sued to block the rental ban’s implementation. O’Hare doubled down: He pushed for Farmers Branch police to partner with immigration enforcement authorities to detain and deport people in the country illegally, and urged residents to oppose a grocer’s plan to open a store that catered to Hispanics, arguing it was “reasonable” to prefer “a grocery store that appeals to higher-end consumers.”

O’Hare was elected as mayor in 2008. Foreshadowing moves he’d make as Tarrant County judge, he abruptly ended a public meeting after cutting off and removing one resident who criticized him. He led opposition to the local high school’s Gay-Straight Alliance and fought against a mentorship program for at-risk high school students that included volunteers from a Hispanic group that opposed his immigration resolution.

Meanwhile, the city continued to defend the immigration ordinance after it was repeatedly struck down by federal judges. As costs for the seven-year legal battle ballooned, Farmers Branch dipped into its reserves, cut nearly two dozen city employees and outsourced services at the library that O’Hare had campaigned on improving during his City Council run. “At the end of the day, this will be money well spent, and it will be a good investment in our community’s future,” O’Hare said after the town laid off staff in 2008.

O’Hare stepped down as mayor in 2011. Three years later, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the city’s appeal, Farmers Branch stopped defending the ordinance. It was never enforced, but the related lawsuits cost the town $6.6 million, city officials said in 2016.

After leaving office, O’Hare moved his family a few miles away to Tarrant County, where demographic changes have dropped the share of white residents from 62% of the county’s population in 2000 to 43% in 2020.

Home to some of the nation’s most influential evangelical churches and four of former President Donald Trump’s spiritual advisers, the county is an epicenter for ultraconservative movements in Texas, including those that call for Christians to exert dominance over all aspects of society. In 2016, O’Hare was elected chair of the Tarrant County GOP. Under him, the party distributed mailers that listed the primary voting records for local candidates — breaking with the longstanding nonpartisan tradition of county elections.

In 2020, following a series of racist incidents at the mostly white Carroll High School in Southlake — including one viral clip in which white students chanted the N-word — O’Hare co-founded a political action committee that raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to oust school board members who supported the Carroll Independent School District’s plans for diversity and inclusion programming. The dispute helped catapult the small Tarrant County suburb into the national spotlight amid Republican panic over critical race theory and “gender ideology,” and created a blueprint for right-wing organizing that was copied in suburbs across America.

In 2021, O’Hare launched his campaign for Tarrant County judge, squaring off in the GOP primary against the more moderate five-term mayor of Fort Worth, whom he painted as a RINO, or “Republican in name only.” O’Hare rode a wave fueled by backlash to COVID-19 mandates, baseless election fraud conspiracy theories and opposition to what he called “diversity inclusion nonsense,” according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. O’Hare’s campaign was condemned by moderate Republicans, including Whitley, the outgoing judge, who accused him of trying to “divide and pit one group against another.” O’Hare won the primary by 23 percentage points.

Whitley and other longtime Republican leaders declined to endorse O’Hare in the 2022 general election. It didn’t matter; by then, he was backed by a coalition of far-right megadonors, pastors and churches. His top campaign donors included a PAC funded by Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks. The two west Texas oil billionaires have given tens of millions of dollars to candidates and groups that oppose LGBTQ+ rights, support programs that would use public dollars to pay for private schools, and have led efforts to push moderates out of the Texas GOP.

O’Hare received another $203,000 from the We Can Keep It PAC. The PAC’s treasurer is an elder at Mercy Culture Church in Fort Worth, whose leaders have endorsed multiple GOP candidates, including O’Hare. The church’s pastor has claimed Democrats can’t be Christian and dared critics to complain to the IRS that the church was flouting federal prohibitions on political activity by nonprofits.

Transforming Elections

O’Hare took office in early 2023, as Republicans continued to question President Joe Biden’s razor-thin win in Tarrant County two years earlier. A 2022 audit by Texas’ Republican secretary of state found no evidence of widespread fraud and that Tarrant County held “a quality, transparent election.”

Despite that — and while saying he had no proof of malfeasance — O’Hare immediately set out to prevent cheating he claimed was responsible for Democrats’ steady rise in the long-purpling county. Soon after taking office, he helped launch an “election integrity unit” that he’d lead with the county sheriff who had spoken at a “Stop the Steal” rally in the days after the 2020 presidential election.

No Democrats were initially on the unit. Nor was the county’s elections administrator, Heider Garcia, who by then had faced three years of harassment, death threats and accusations of being a secret agent for Venezuela’s socialist government by election fraud conspiracy theorists. Garcia opted for radical transparency — making himself accessible to answer questions about the election process and earning praise from across the political aisle for his patient public service.

But Garcia lasted only a few months under O’Hare: In April 2023, he resigned his position, citing his relationship with O’Hare in his resignation letter. “Judge O’Hare, my formula to ‘administer a quality transparent election’ stands on respect and zero politics; compromising on these values is not an option for me,” Garcia wrote. “You made it clear in our last meeting that your formula is different, thus, my decision is to leave.”

Garcia, now the Dallas County elections administrator, did not respond to an interview request.

One day after Garcia resigned, O’Hare told members of True Texas Project — a group whose leaders have sympathized with a white nationalist mass shooter and endorsed Christian nationalism — that he was encouraged by the potential for low turnout in that year’s upcoming elections, which he said would help Republicans win more local seats. (O’Hare previously served on True Texas Project’s advisory team, according to a 2021 social media post by the group’s CEO, Julie McCarty).

In June 2024, the election integrity unit reported that, over the previous 15 months, it received 82 complaints of voter fraud — or about 0.009% of all votes cast in the 2020 presidential election in Tarrant County — and that none had resulted in criminal charges. Meanwhile, O’Hare has proposed a number of changes to the election system that Tarrant County GOP leaders have said were intended to help Republicans or hurt Democrats.

In February, O’Hare and fellow Republicans cut $10,000 in county funding to provide free bus rides to low-income residents, a program that Tarrant GOP leaders decried as a scheme to “bus Democrats to the polls.”

O'Hare said he opposed the funding on fiscal grounds. “I don’t believe it’s the county government’s responsibility to try to get more people out to the polls,” he said before the vote.

A few months later, commissioners prohibited outside organizations from registering voters inside county buildings after Tarrant County GOP leaders raised concerns about left-leaning organizations holding registration drives. Democrats and voting rights groups assailed the moves as attempts to lower voter turnout.

In September, O’Hare proposed eliminating voting locations on some college campuses that he called a “waste of money and manpower.” But this time, his Republican allies on the Commissioners Court said they could not go along with the vote and joined Democrats to defeat the measure. Tarrant County Republican leaders condemned the recalcitrant commissioners in a public resolution that made it clear they saw the effort to close polls on college campuses as a move that would help them in November. The GOP commissioners, the resolution claimed, “voted with Democrats on a key election vote that undermines the ability of Republicans to win the general election in Tarrant County.”

Manny Ramirez, one of those Republican commissioners, said in an interview he thinks the GOP should try to win college students with their conservative ideas rather than limit on-campus voting.

“We’ve been providing those same exact sites for nearly two decades,” Ramirez said. His role as commissioner, he added, is to provide “equal access to all of our citizens.”

Targeting Youth Programs

Less than a year into his term, O’Hare began targeting long-established nonprofits whose websites and social media accounts contained language the county judge considered politically objectionable on issues of gender and race.

In October 2023, he moved to block a $115,000 state grant to Girls Inc. of Tarrant County, for its Girl Power program offering summer camps and mentoring to help participants focus on stress management, hygiene and self-esteem.

About 90% of the youth served by Girls Inc. of Tarrant County are people of color and come from families making less than $30,000 a year, according to the organization’s website.

Four months earlier, the national Girls Inc. group, which has chapters across the country, had tweeted out its support for abortion rights and LGBTQ+ pride, which conservative media and activists seized upon.

“Girls Inc. is an extremist political indoctrination machine advocating for divisive liberal politics,” Leigh Wambsganss, the chief communications officer of Patriot Mobile, told commissioners. Patriot Mobile is a Christian nationalist cellphone company whose PAC has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of far-right candidates across Tarrant County, including O’Hare.

Local leaders of Girls Inc., who did not respond to requests for comment, said at the time their chapter is independent of the national organization. They told commissioners they were reviewing their affiliation with the parent organization.

In denying the funds, O’Hare told the Commissioners Court the government shouldn’t support “an organization that is so deeply ideological and encourages the children that they are teaching to go advocate for social change.”

Commissioners killed the contract on a 3-2 party-line vote.

Six months later, O’Hare raised questions about another local nonprofit, Big Thought. It provides youth in the Tarrant County juvenile detention system with summer and after-school programs aimed at helping them get their lives back on track through music, acting and performance arts. Big Thought has had a contract with the county for the past three years and says on its website that youth who go through its programs reoffend at a lower rate than those who don’t, potentially saving taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in juvenile detention costs.

At an April meeting of the Tarrant County Juvenile Board, O’Hare raised questions about the program’s advocacy for “racial equity” after reading the organization’s website, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. (The board’s meetings are not streamed or recorded).

Asked about O’Hare’s concerns, a Big Thought spokesperson said in an email that the organization focuses on the realities facing at-risk youth in Tarrant County. “Young people in our communities experience challenges like economic inequality, racism, and more, and it is our responsibility to provide a safe place to build the skills they need so they can thrive,” said Evan Cleveland, Big Thought’s senior director of programs.

The county’s juvenile probation director, Bennie Medlin, who has not responded to requests for comment, told board members the program had not had any “negative results” during the partnership, according to minutes of the meeting. Members of the board were not swayed and voted not to renew the program.

Three months later, at the juvenile board’s July meeting, O’Hare and a district judge proposed ending a contract with the Pennsylvania nonprofit Youth Advocate Programs after probing the nonprofit about the position it had taken in briefs to the Supreme Court, its opinion on school choice and police in schools, and whether “they work to eliminate systemic racism,” according to minutes of the meeting.

Board members voted to cut ties with the nonprofit, which had worked with the county for over three decades to provide mentoring, job training and substance abuse counseling as alternatives to detention.

Gary Ivory, the organization’s president, said that a week after the July vote, he met with O’Hare for about a half-hour in O’Hare’s office. He said O’Hare questioned him about his personal views on the LGBTQ+ community and “hot-button cultural war issues." Also during that meeting, O’Hare pulled up Youth Advocate Programs’ website, Ivory said, and asked him why the group takes funding from Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for gun control.

“They are saying if anybody is too woke in Tarrant County, we are going to put them in the dustbin of history and they won’t exist anymore,” Ivory said.

On Oct. 1, Tarrant County commissioners voted to sign a similar contract with another nonprofit. At the meeting, O’Hare denied pushing to kill Youth Advocate Programs’ contract “because of a phrase on a website.” Instead, he claimed Ivory told the juvenile board that 15% of the money Tarrant County gives the program goes to lobbyists and to “law firms to file amicus briefs against many of the things the people in that room that voted disagree with.”

Ivory said that is incorrect. “I said generally 85 cents on a dollar stays in Tarrant County and 15 cents goes to overhead,” he said. “And I made it clear that YAP doesn’t spend any of that 15 cents on the dollar for lobbying.”

Phil Sawyer, a longtime juvenile probation officer in Tarrant County who retired two years ago, said the program was well respected within the department and helped give badly needed services that the department could not provide. “It’s a shocker,” he said of the county’s decision to cut ties with the group. “Without them, it would just be insanity. There are things we can do as probation officers, but it’s not the same.”

Stifling Dissent

In recent months, O’Hare has taken aim at private citizens who disagree with him, ordering several political opponents removed from Commissioners Court meetings and calling for the firing of a local college professor.

As Ryon Price’s allotted three minutes of public comment during the July 2 Commissioners Court meeting expired, O’Hare issued a sharp warning to the man, a local Baptist minister who was a frequent antagonist of O’Hare’s at such meetings: “Your time is up.”

It’s not uncommon for residents to go over their allotted time during public comment sessions. But after Price continued criticizing conditions in the Tarrant County Jail for an extra eight seconds, O’Hare ordered sheriff’s deputies to step in: “He’s now held in contempt. Remove him.”

As Price was escorted out of the meeting, someone in the audience booed. “Was that you?” O’Hare snapped. “Well, try me.”

Price said that in the lobby, sheriff’s deputies handed him a trespassing warning that banned him from the premises. “I think it’s symbolic of a broader, more authoritarian shift” in Tarrant County government, Price said of his removal. “And I have to wonder if he really wants to govern this place, a place that splits red and blue evenly, or just please some higher-ups in his own party.”

Price appealed his ban to the Tarrant County sheriff’s department and said the appeal was granted in August, allowing him to resume addressing the court during public comment sessions.

Minutes after Price was escorted from that July meeting, Lon Burnam, a Democrat who served nine terms in the Texas House, approached O’Hare to confront him about his decision to cut off another commissioner who was requesting information about sheriff department policies. Burnam later received a trespass warning from sheriff’s deputies and said he is banned from public meetings until Jan. 1.

At their meeting two weeks later, commissioners amended public speaking rules as O’Hare warned residents that “refusal to abide by the Commissioners Court’s order or my order as the presiding judge or continued disruption of the meeting may result in arrest and prosecution under the laws of the state of Texas.”

O’Hare said the changes were needed to ensure civility in the meeting room. “This is not in any way shape or form attempting to stifle free speech,” he said during the meeting.

Also in August, O’Hare called for the firing of a Texas Christian University professor over social media posts from 2021 that called for police to be abolished. The professor, Alexandra Edwards, drew the ire of local right-wing activists after writing about them and the pro-Christian nationalism conference that O’Hare attended in July. Not long after, a local right-wing website published an article about her “antifa” views in which O’Hare called her a “radical” and said Edwards should be fired.

“The full force of the repression of the Tarrant County GOP and the various right-wing extremists kind of came down upon me,” Edwards said in an interview, adding that she was inundated with threats and harassment.

Such crackdowns are a sign that the local GOP has been taken over by extremists, said Whitley, the county’s Republican former judge.

“They’ve gone so far to the right that most folks who used to be adamant Republicans are not so much anymore,” he said, adding that some in the GOP are too afraid of retaliation by O’Hare to speak out publicly.

O’Hare’s term doesn’t end until 2027. But this year’s elections will decide which party controls the powerful commissioners court and, in some ways, will be a referendum on the first two years of his tenure in county government.

Whitley said he hopes it will be a unifying moment for voters from across the political spectrum. “I want us to be Americans, to be Texans and to not just care about parties,” he said. “I hope people will vote for the best person and not just vote for the party.”

Jodi S. Cohen of ProPublica and Juan Salinas II of The Texas Tribune contributed reporting. Dan Keemahill of ProPublica and The Texas Tribune contributed research.

‘Fossil Fuel Companies Are Hijacking Our Universities’: 6 Top Schools Received Over $100 Million in Funds From Polluting Industries Since 2003

Elite universities in the United States — which conduct important climate research — are raking in millions from fossil fuel interests, potentially creating conflicts of interest. This is according to a collection of new reports compiled by student organizers and released by the student-led Campus Climate Network, as The Guardian reported. “Universities globally are often caught in a web of financial and research dependencies with the fossil fuel sector. These ties not only conflict with the ethics of academic independence but also hinder the progress of genuine climate research,” Campus Climate Network said on its website. One institution, Princeton University, seems to have actually owned an oil company — Petrotiger, named after its mascot — earning it millions of dollars, reported The Guardian. Six analyses put together by students at each institution focused on Princeton, American University, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Cornell University, Columbia University and University of California, San Diego. “Fossil fuel companies are hijacking our universities to perpetuate their own toxic industry, and we students are not having it anymore,” said Will Kattrup, Campus Climate Network research lead, as The Guardian reported. In order to document university funding that came from fossil fuels, those conducting the research looked at tax forms revealing oil company donations to universities, tracked statements of conflict of interest in academic articles and searched for names of school board members associated with fossil fuel interests. Public information requests for additional financial information were also filed by students attending public universities. The researchers discovered that, since 2003, the six prestigious schools have accepted a total of more than $100 million in funding tied to the fossil fuel industry, either from companies or their charitable divisions.
‘Fossil Fuel Companies Are Hijacking Our Universities’: 6 Top Schools Received Over $100 Million in Funds From Polluting Industries Since 2003

French economist Thomas Piketty

The French economist Thomas Piketty is better known for writing enormous books like 2013’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which went all the way back to the 18th century to show that personal wealth will always increase faster than economic growth, making inequality almost inevitable. But Piketty can also make a strong case in under 100 pages, as he does in Nature, Culture and Inequality, his latest book out this fall. It’s adapted from a lecture he gave in 2022, and Piketty’s conversational style makes the book highly readable. He offers two key proposals: even highly unequal societies can become more equal (and rich) without violence, and global heating will worsen unless we achieve global equality of wealth. Piketty argues that “inequality” of income, wealth and social status occurs far more thanks to cultural reasons than to personal ability or character. “It is culture in the broadest sense — and, more particularly, collective political mobilization — that provides an explanation for the diversity, degree and structure of the social inequalities we observe,” he writes. Read More

Judge Orders EPA to Consider Risk Posed by Fluoridated Water to Children’s IQs

Judge Orders EPA to Consider Risk Posed by Fluoridated Water to Children’s IQsThe United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been ordered by a federal judge to strengthen regulations surrounding fluoride in drinking water. In San Francisco, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen took the side of several advocacy groups to find that, at current levels, fluoridating drinking water supplies presented an unreasonable risk to the developing brains of children, reported Reuters. “The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ,” said Chen, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, as Reuters reported. Chen said a non-jury trial with the advocacy groups had established enough of a risk of harm to require a response from the EPA pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

B.C.’s Conservative Party wants the province to reconsider its nuclear energy ban

Amidst all the name-calling and mud-slinging in B.C. politics as the Oct. 19 provincial election approaches, candidates from across the political spectrum can agree on at least one thing: B.C. needs more power. BC Hydro estimates electricity demand will grow 15 per cent by 2030, driven partly by efforts to provide cleaner power to emission-intensive industries like liquefied natural gas (LNG) and mining. To meet the expected demand surge, BC Hydro has put out a call for power generation proposals such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. That’s on top of energy from the $16-billion Site C hydro dam, which is nearing completion on B.C.’s Peace River after more than nine years of construction. But BC Conservative Party Leader John Rustad says the province should consider another source of power — nuclear energy. “Wind and solar can be part of the mix, but they’re not baseload, they’re not reliable,” Rustad recently told attendees at the Union of BC Municipalities convention in Vancouver. “We’re going to actually have to have a conversation about the possibility of using nuclear power in British Columbia. Read More

North Korea Infiltrates Crypto Industry

North Korea Infiltrates Crypto Industry CoinDesk identified more than a dozen crypto companies that unknowingly hired IT workers from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), including such well-established blockchain projects as Injective, ZeroLend, Fantom, Sushi, Yearn Finance and Cosmos Hub. The workers used fake IDs, successfully navigated interviews, passed reference checks and presented genuine work histories. Hiring DPRK workers is against the law in the U.S. and other countries that sanction North Korea. It also presents a security risk: CoinDesk encountered multiple examples of companies hiring DPRK IT workers and subsequently getting hacked. "Everyone is struggling to filter out these people," said Zaki Manian, a prominent blockchain developer who says he inadvertently hired two DPRK IT workers to help develop the Cosmos Hub blockchain in 2021. Read More

A Supreme Court Justice Warned That a Ruling Would Cause “Large-Scale Disruption.” The Effects Are Already Being Felt.

A Supreme Court Justice Warned That a Ruling Would Cause “Large-Scale Disruption.” The Effects Are Already Being Felt. by Eli Sanders for ProPublica, illustrations by Michael Haddid, special to ProPublica

A Supreme Court Justice Warned That a Ruling Would Cause “Large-Scale Disruption.” The Effects Are Already Being Felt.

by Eli Sanders for ProPublica, illustrations by Michael Haddid, special to ProPublica

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Reporting Highlights

  • Long-time Precedent Abandoned: The high court rejected a doctrine granting deference to regulatory agencies in interpreting laws when Congress hasn’t clearly defined the scope of the agencies’ power.
  • Effects Were Immediate: After less than three months, parties or judges have invoked the new ruling in 110 cases, with more likely to come.
  • Broad Reach: The ruling has already been cited in cases on abortion, overtime pay, airline fees, protections against health care discrimination, background checks for guns and more.

These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

For headline-grabbing drama, few Supreme Court decisions could equal the justices’ July ruling that former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for virtually all of their official acts. But a decision in the seemingly humdrum realm of administrative law could end up having far broader consequences, affecting vast areas of American life by slashing the power of federal regulatory agencies that police pollution, food safety, health care and countless other aspects of modern society.

Lower court judges have already cited the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, in a case known as Loper Bright, to halt implementation of Biden administration rules on overtime pay and health care discrimination. In the past three months, Loper Bright also has been invoked to challenge regulations on everything from hidden airline fees to gun sales to abortion referrals.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was part of the conservative majority in Loper Bright, described it as placing “a tombstone” on a doctrine that had existed for 40 years. That doctrine, known as Chevron deference, was named after the 1984 Supreme Court case in which it emerged, and it offered an answer to a recurring question: What happens when Congress passes a law granting power to a federal agency but fails to precisely define the boundaries of that power?

In such situations, the doctrine of Chevron deference instructed federal judges to rely on the interpretations made by federal agencies, as long as those interpretations were reasonable, since agencies typically have greater expertise in their subject areas than judges. The Loper Bright decision erased that, commanding federal judges to “exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”

Dissenting, Justice Elena Kagan noted that federal courts had cited Chevron deference 18,000 times, making it “part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest.” She warned of “large-scale disruption.”

Legal experts view Loper Bright as a major transfer of power from agencies to judges. “You have incredibly technical areas of law for which the U.S. Supreme Court in Loper Bright has now paved a path for individual judges, or panels of three judges, to make decisions without having the technical expertise,” said Sanne Knudsen, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law, whose scholarship on deference doctrines has been cited by the Supreme Court.

Critics of the Chevron doctrine argued that letting agencies make legal interpretations led to constant uncertainty, with each presidential administration appointing new agency leaders who theoretically could change their interpretation of the law. But critics of the Loper Bright ruling counter that the same risk exists today — at the hands of judges rather than regulators.

Dan Weiner, director for elections and government at the Brennan Center for Justice, sees Loper Bright as the capstone of a series of recent Supreme Court rulings that limit agency power. Weiner called it the “culmination of a broader project to just cut the legs out from under government as we’ve known it since the New Deal.”

In theory, Congress could respond by writing more detailed legislation when it comes to federal agency power. But in the current political landscape, Knudsen said, that’s unlikely. As she put it, “cases like Loper Bright put more power in the hands of individual judges to decide policy questions, taking them further from the hands of the experts that Congress has otherwise delegated power to.”

Loper Bright has been celebrated by foes of regulation. The decision “gives us the thunder and lightning we need to beat back the aggressive anti-gun agenda of the rogue Biden Administration,” Gun Owners of America exulted in a press release after the ruling.

The advocacy group Democracy Forward counted 110 federal cases in which parties or judges have cited Loper Bright as of Sept. 6 — and that figure will only rise in the coming months and years. Here are some of the most consequential pending cases.

Labor

Who is eligible for overtime pay?

It took only hours for the decision to ripple into a lower court. On June 28, the day Loper Bright was announced, a federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction against a new Department of Labor rule expanding eligibility for overtime pay. The judge blocked the rule from being enforced against the state of Texas as an employer, explaining that his decision “carefully follows Loper Bright’s controlling guidance.”

Among other things, the regulation seeks to prevent employers from deeming someone an “executive,” and thus exempt from overtime pay, if that person’s salary is below $43,888 (or below $58,656 next year). “Too often, lower-paid salaried workers are doing the same job as their hourly counterparts but are spending more time away from their families for no additional pay,” acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su said when the regulation was announced in April. “That is unacceptable.”

Texas challenged the rule, arguing the DOL had exceeded the authority granted by Congress in the Fair Labor Standards Act; the judge wrote that he expects to reach a final decision “in a matter of months.”

Health Care

Does Obamacare protect transgender people from discrimination?

On July 3, three federal judges in different states, all citing Loper Bright, issued orders blocking implementation of a new rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would prohibit discrimination in health care based on gender identity.

Mary Rouvelas, legal advocacy director for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said her group had supported the regulation because “nondiscrimination is critical for LGBTQ individuals, who suffer a disproportionate cancer burden.” However, the rule had become “a political football” amid debates over gender affirming care, Rouvelas said, and under Loper Bright federal judges no longer had to defer to HHS’ determination that gender identity is protected under the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” but does not use the phrase “gender identity.”

Fifteen states sued in Mississippi federal court, arguing that HHS overstepped its authority. The states claimed the rule would force them to “use taxpayer funds to pay for unproven and costly gender-transition interventions through Medicaid and state health plans — even for children who may suffer irreversible harms.” District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. issued a nationwide injunction against the rule. The case will continue while the regulation is on hold, as will similar cases in Texas and Florida.

Transportation

Can a federal agency force airlines to reveal fees?

The Department of Transportation issued a rule in April that requires airlines to, in the words of Secretary Pete Buttigieg, “inform you, before you buy a ticket, of fees they will charge you.” The rule specifies that baggage, change and cancellation fees must be disclosed the first time an airline quotes a price to a customer. At present, according to DOT court filings, “surprise costs” cause consumers to “overpay by half a billion dollars annually.”

In May, a group of airlines sued to stop the rule, claiming that the DOT exceeded its authority. According to the airlines, the agency can order them to halt unfair or deceptive practices after they’ve occurred, but it cannot tell them what their practices should be going forward. The airlines sought a stay. The DOT counters that its new regulation is based on “well-established” legal authority.

On July 1 — the Monday following the Friday issuance of the Loper Bright ruling — lawyers for the airlines cited the case, telling the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that “resolving this statutory-interpretation issue is a task for this Court, especially because, with Chevron overruled, only courts have ‘the power to authoritatively interpret the statute.’”

At the end of July, a panel of three 5th Circuit judges stayed the rule, concluding that the airlines had “made a strong showing that the Rule exceeds the agency’s authority.” They placed the case on an expedited path toward a final determination of whether the rule should be struck down.

Employment

Can the FTC ban agreements that prohibit employees from joining a rival company?

In April, after six years of study, the Federal Trade Commission issued a rule banning noncompete agreements, which restrict workers from accepting employment with competitors for a period of time after leaving their current jobs. The FTC determined the rule was needed because such contracts impair “the fundamental freedom of workers to change jobs,” harm innovation and are “often exploitative.” Of the more than 26,000 comments the agency had received about the proposed ban, over 25,000 were supportive, the FTC said. A group of plaintiffs that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed suit in federal court in Texas, arguing the FTC had exceeded its authority.

On Aug. 20, citing Loper Bright, the judge in this case agreed with the plaintiffs and issued a final order that set aside the ban on noncompetes, declaring that the FTC had “promulgated the Non-Compete Rule in excess of its statutory authority.” The Chamber of Commerce called it a “significant win” in the group’s “fight against government micromanagement of business decisions.” An FTC spokesperson told ProPublica that the agency is “seriously considering a potential appeal” and added that the “decision does not prevent the FTC from addressing noncompetes through case-by-base enforcement actions.”

Guns

Can the government require background checks for firearms sold at gun shows?

In April, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued a rule that would close a loophole through which guns are sold without background checks online and at gun shows. Attorney General Merrick Garland called it “one of the most significant gun regulations in decades.” Under the rule, he said: “It does not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show or at a brick-and-mortar store. If someone sells a gun predominantly to earn a profit, they must be licensed, and they must conduct a background check to ensure that the buyer is not barred by law from having a gun.”

In May, 21 states sued to block the regulation in federal court in Arkansas. The complaint noted that the Supreme Court would soon be hearing arguments in Loper Bright and contended the ATF had exceeded its authority in adopting the rule.

Another group of plaintiffs filed suit in the Northern District of Texas, also seeking to block the ATF rule. Those plaintiffs include the states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Utah, as well as Gun Owners of America, which has called the rule “tyrannical.” On June 11, weeks before Loper Bright was decided, the judge in the Texas case, Matthew Kacsmaryk, issued a preliminary injunction banning enforcement of the rule against any of the plaintiffs in the Texas case. Kacsmaryk based his decision in part on his belief that the plaintiffs would likely succeed in proving, in further proceedings, that the ATF had exceeded its authority. The Justice Department appealed the preliminary injunction to the 5th Circuit.

On July 10, less than two weeks after the Loper Bright decision, the judge in Arkansas went the opposite direction from the judge in Texas, denying the request from the 21 other states that he block the ATF rule closing the gun-show loophole. In doing this, the Arkansas judge cited a passage in Loper Bright that he views as supporting the ATF’s authority to close the loophole.

Much remains to be argued in the Texas and Arkansas lawsuits; both injunction rulings are being appealed on multiple grounds. But the Arkansas judge’s use of Loper Bright to support an agency’s authority to regulate highlights the still-unsettled nature of the high court’s pronouncements in Loper Bright. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce noted, there is a need for lower courts to “interpret” certain aspects of the decision going forward.

Abortion

Can federal aid for family planning be withheld from states that prohibit abortion?

In 2021, HHS issued a rule related to Title X grants, which have existed since 1970 and are intended to fund family planning programs. This rule, as described by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, requires states receiving Title X grants to “provide neutral, nondirective counseling and referrals for abortions to patients who request it.” Tennessee had received Title X grants for more than 50 years. But after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Tennessee banned abortions with exceptions only to “prevent the death of the pregnant woman or prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” Tennessee said it would provide counseling and referrals only for abortions that are legal in the state. In response, HHS ended Tennessee’s Title X funding. The state sued, seeking an injunction to prevent the grant from ending and claiming that HHS exceeded its authority by requiring unbiased abortion counseling and referrals as a condition for Title X aid.

Just a year earlier, the 6th Circuit, in a similar case, had ruled that HHS did have the statutory authority to condition Title X funding in this manner. In doing so, the 6th Circuit relied on Chevron deference, finding that the new HHS regulation was based on a reasonable interpretation of this ambiguous statute. (The appeals court also cited a second precedent, a Supreme Court decision from 1991 that applied Chevron deference to the same Title X issue.)

Given the end of Chevron deference, should the 6th Circuit’s 2023 decision upholding HHS’ abortion counseling and referral rule be stripped of any precedential effect? Tennessee certainly thought so. But two judges from the 6th Circuit disagreed, pointing to a line in Loper Bright that says “we do not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework.” Therefore, the 6th Circuit reasoned, its 2023 precedent upholding HHS’ rule had withstood the death of Chevron deference and, as a result, the injunction requested by Tennessee was unwarranted. One judge on the 6th Circuit’s three-judge panel disagreed, however, citing different passages from Loper Bright to reach the opposite conclusion. The case is now continuing in the Tennessee district court where it was originally filed.

Taxes

Can the FTC stop a tax-preparation company from making misleading claims?

In January, after an investigation prompted by ProPublica’s reporting, the FTC concluded that Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, used deceptive advertising to lure customers into paying for tax preparation services when they were eligible to file for free under a program sponsored by the government. Purchases by such customers generated roughly $1 billion in revenue for Intuit and other tax prep companies in 2019 alone, according to a government audit.

The FTC ordered Intuit to cease and desist from making any misleading “free” claims in its advertising. In response, Intuit appealed the FTC’s ruling to the 5th Circuit and asserted that Loper Bright had strengthened its argument for jettisoning the decision. “Whatever ‘deference’ the FTC claimed its interpretation of the FTC Act was due did not survive the Supreme Court’s intervening holding,” lawyers for the company wrote.

Intuit is also citing a recent Supreme Court decision that found the Securities and Exchange Commission can’t bring certain kinds of suits before its own administrative law judges; Intuit argues the decision, which focused on a securities fraud case in which civil penalties were sought, should apply to the FTC, too. The FTC disagrees, arguing that its action, originally brought before an FTC administrative law judge, is different from the relevant SEC action. For example, no civil penalties were involved in the action against Intuit. In a sign of how much rides on the outcome in this appeal, amicus briefs have been filed on both sides by a group of more than 20 states; numerous consumer advocate groups, including Public Citizen and the Consumer Federation of America; business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business; and the libertarian Cato Institute.

Immigration

Can a judge review the revocation of an immigrant’s opportunity for citizenship by marriage?

During the Supreme Court’s next term, it will hear a case involving the intricate rules for becoming a U.S. citizen through marriage. The case, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, asks the justices to consider a very specific scenario, in which a Palestinian national married a U.S. citizen named Amina Bouarfa, who then petitioned to make her new husband eligible for citizenship through marriage. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved Bouarfa’s petition but then, two years later, revoked that approval, saying the couple’s union had been “a sham marriage” for “the purpose of evading immigration laws.” The question in this case is whether that revocation is subject to judicial review.

The case also reveals an unexpected potential consequence of the Loper Bright ruling. It’s typically perceived as a victory for conservative foes of regulation, but liberals may be able to use the ruling to their advantage in certain areas. For example, in the realm of immigration, conservatives typically want more vigorous federal regulation. But in this case, liberal advocates of immigration reform are attempting to use Loper Bright to check the power of an immigration agency. “We’ll see whether the people who advanced Loper Bright might end up having a little bit of buyer’s remorse,” Weiner, of the Brennan Center for Justice, said.

Advocates for immigration reform have filed an amicus brief that supports Bouarfa’s right to judicial review by citing passages from Loper Bright. In addition, lawyers for Bouarfa have cited another major administrative law ruling last term from the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, which greatly expanded the possibilities for suing federal agencies. That ruling led dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to warn that the “tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court’s holding in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government.”

It’s too early to say whether a legal tsunami is coming, but with the Supreme Court set to open its new term in two weeks, it’s clear that a wave is already growing.

Eli Sanders won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for feature writing and is a recent law school graduate.

Amazon, Tesla and Meta among world’s top companies undermining democracy – report

Corporations such as ExxonMobil and Blackstone also big funders of climate crisis, new trade union report finds Some of the world’s largest companies have been accused of undermining democracy across the world by financially backing far-right political movements, funding and exacerbating the climate crisis, and violating trade union rights and human rights in a report published on Monday by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). Amazon, Tesla, Meta, ExxonMobil, Blackstone, Vanguard and Glencore are the corporations included in the report. The companies’ lobbying arms are attempting to shape global policy at the United Nations Summit of the Future in New York City on 22 and 23 September.Amazon, Tesla and Meta among world’s top companies undermining democracy – report

Ken Burns on the ‘incredibly dangerous’ party that the GOP has ‘morphed’...

FBI agents have boarded vessel managed by company whose other cargo ship collapsed Baltimore bridge

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Criminal Investigation Division and Coast Guard Investigative Services are present aboard the Maersk Saltoro conducting court authorized law enforcement activity,” statements from both the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office said Saturday morning. Authorities did not offer further specifics. The Washington Post first reported on federal authorities boarding the ship. The raid came several months after investigators conducted a similar search of the Dali, the cargo ship that crashed into the bridge. In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, the U.S. Justice Department alleged that Dali owner Grace Ocean Private Ltd. and manager Synergy Marine, both of Singapore, recklessly cut corners and ignored known electrical problems on the vessel, which lost power multiple times minutes before it crashed into a support column on the Francis Scott Key Bridge in March.Read More