Marlean Ames filed a reverse discrimination lawsuit in 2020 after she lost out on two jobs to colleagues who were gay at the Ohio Youth Department.The Washington PostBy Justin JouvenalJune 5, 2025The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a straight woman who claimed she faced bias in the workplace after she was passed over for positions that went to gay colleagues. The decision will make it easier for people who are White, male or not gay to prove job discrimination claims.The justices unanimously struck down a standard, used in nearly half of the nation’s federal circuits, that required members of groups that historically have not faced discrimination to meet a higher bar to prove workplace bias than members of minority groups.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the only Black woman on the high court, wrote the opinion that sided with Marlean Ames, an Ohio state government employee who argued it was unconstitutional to have different standards for different groups of people.
2. What is a prima facie case, and why does it matter?A prima facie case is the first step in proving employment discrimination. Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must show they belong to a protected class, were qualified for the job, suffered an adverse employment action, and occurred under circumstances suggesting discrimination. If these criteria are met, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a non-discriminatory reason for their decision.
4. Justice Barrett raises the “floodgates” concernJustice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether removing the Sixth Circuit’s rule could lead to an influx of cases allowing employees to claim discrimination without solid evidence. “This is just going to throw the door wide open to Title VII suits because now everybody can say, hey, this was discrimination on the basis of race, gender, et cetera?” she asked.
7. What’s next? A potential landmark rulingThe Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by June, and its decision could significantly impact employment discrimination law. If the justices rule in Ames’s favor, the case could eliminate the background circumstances rule entirely.As Wang put it in his closing remarks, “All Ms. Ames is asking for is equal justice under law. Not more justice, not less, but certainly not less because of the color of her skin or because of her sex or because of her religion.”
Corporations and employment lawyers watched Ames’s case closely because many thought a high court ruling in her favor could result in more workplace discrimination claims by members of majority groups.[...]The case, known as Ames v. Ohio Youth Department, also coincides with President Donald Trump’s attack on DEI initiatives. Trump has issued executive orders targeting DEI programs in the federal government and has ordered the Justice Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to investigate programs in the private sector.
Despite state protections, Connecticut Children’s makes changes as Trump, courts roll back rightsBy Kaitlin McCallum Hartford CourantAs transgender rights crumble across the United States, Connecticut residents continue to cling to the premise of state’s rights and the promised protections of their elected officials, while hoping for fortitude of their providers.The Supreme Court of the United States ruled to uphold a state ban on gender-affirming care for minors Wednesday, signaling that it would allow states to enact such bans. The court, in a 6-3 decision, found that Tennessee’s landmark case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, does not discriminate based on sex and transgender status and thus does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.The ruling is the latest win for those seeking to ban gender-affirming care and a loss for those who say the care is life-saving and medically recommended as best practice for transgender people.Amid the evolving lay of the land, a Connecticut hospital told employees it would will remove public-facing language and programs about DEI and gender-affirming care due to “recent federal mandates and heightened scrutiny.” It includes ending use of “visual symbols, logos, event promotions, and communication campaigns associated with any DEI-specific themes, initiatives, or activities,” a document obtained by the Courant shows.Medical organizations that endorse age-appropriate gender-affirming care include American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association, the Endocrine Society, American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Nursing, and the American College of Physicians.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who has filed a slew of lawsuits seeking to block what he says are unlawful actions by President Donald Trump, condemned the ruling and vowed he would continue to fight to protect transgender residents and their rights.
“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court will harm kids, plain and simple. Gender-affirming care is lifesaving for many individuals, and for a court to uphold bans on medically necessary care to anyone sets a dangerous precedent. These extremely personal and sensitive decisions should be made only by an individual and their doctor without any input or interference from unqualified judges and politicians,” Tong said.“As the Dobbs decision did with abortion, this ruling risks creating two Americas: one where access to high quality, lifesaving care is protected, and one where discrimination and misinformation restricts that access. So I want to be clear — while today’s ruling is a setback for the rights of transgender youth in certain states across the country, gender-affirming care is still legal and accessible here inConnecticut, and my office will continue to fight for and protect transgender youth and their families.”
Still, access to care is tenuous in Connecticut. An executive order, “Protecting Children from Medical and Surgical Mutilation,” on Jan. 28, threatened to defund gender-affirming care providers by stripping them of research or educational grants. Enforcement of that order was blocked by a federal judge in California on June 9, but legal challenges continue.
“The Court today failed to do its job. It chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics.”WASHINGTON, DC—The Supreme Court of the United States today issued its ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on healthcare for transgender youth.Today’s decision has no impact in states where health care for transgender youth is not currently banned.Every major medical association including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association support this care, backed by decades of research and relying upon the same safe and effective medications used to treat a range of other health issues for children and adults. Last month, in the most comprehensive review to date, a new 1,000+ report commissioned by the Utah Legislature found that this care is supported by substantial evidence, is safe and effective, and reduces risk of suicidality.GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter, both of whom have more than 30 years each of LGBTQ+ impact litigation experience, including on transgender health care cases, and are themselves transgender, responded to today’s Supreme Court ruling:“The Court today failed to do its job,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution’s backbone. Instead, it chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics.”“The Court’s ruling abandons transgender youth and their families to political attacks. It ignored clear discrimination and disregarded its own legal precedent by letting lawmakers target young people for being transgender,” said National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter. “Healthcare decisions belong with families, not politicians. This decision will cause real harm.”
ABC Newsby GEOFF HARRISJune 19th 2025The Department of Homeland Security is placing new limitations on lawmakers seeking to visit ICE field offices. DHS released the guidelines following multiple confrontational visits, including outside Delaney Hall in New Jersey in May.In order to visit an ICE field office, members of Congress now have new rules. Erin Corcoran, an immigration law expert at the University of Notre Dame told us, DHS is now asking lawmakers to give 72-hours notice.
Under federal law, DHS can't stop members of Congress from entering a facility used to detain or house aliens and don't have to give prior notice of a visit. But the new guidelines argue, that law doesn't apply to field offices.
| Case | Institution | Domain | Protections Affirmed? | Level of Review | Significanc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bostock | SCOTUS (2020) | Workplace (Title VII) | ✅ Strong | N/A (statutory) | Established national workplace protections |
| Grimm | 4th Circuit (2020); SCOTUS denied cert (2021) | Schools (Title IX + Equaly) | ✅ Strong in 4th Circuit | Intermediate scrutiny | Landmark for trans student rights |
| Adams | 11th Circuit (2022) | Schools (Title IX + Equal Protection) | ⚠️ No | Intermediate scrutiny | Created regional conflict (circuit split) |
| Skrmetti | SCOTUS (2025) | Healthcare (14th Amendment) | ❌ Rejected | Rational-basis | Broader rollback on trans youth medical rights |
Skrmetti arrives five years after Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia, which addressed Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (the act). The act, among other prohibitions, bars employment discrimination based on “sex.” Bostock held that the act’s prohibition on sex-based discrimination prohibits discriminatory conduct based on transgender identity or sexual orientation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which oversees and enforces Title VII, has extended Bostock’s holding to the terms and conditions of employment more generally, including employee health benefits.
But the problem is that SB1 does not treat children with gender dysphoria the same as it treats children with analogous diagnoses. The exception in Tennessee’s SB1 results in the creation of two separate classes of care for minors, which depend completely on the minor’s sex assigned at birth. For example, many minors might seek to be medicated to avoid breast tissue from building up. Whether they’re allowed to do so depends completely on their sex assigned at birth: if they were assigned male at birth, they can get the medication. If they are assigned female at birth, they cannot.
USPATH & WPATH Condemn Decision inU.S. v Skrmetti Allowing States to Ban Access to Healthcare for Transgender YouthWashington, D.C. – Today, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti, which effectively allows states to ban access to care for transgender and gender diverse youth, the United States Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH) and World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), issued the following statement:“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a dangerous setback for transgender health and human rights in the United States. This decision will effectively allow states to ban evidence-based gender-affirming healthcare for thousands of transgender and gender diverse youth and their families. Furthermore, it will make it much more difficult to create an evidence base to support access to healthcare of this kind.A ruling like this does not change the fundamental fact that transgender youth exist, their lives are improved when they can access care and are harmed whenever the government comes in between them and the professional experts trained to provide them this care. Let us be clear – healthcare bans of any kind are rooted in stigma, misinformation, and fear and this one comes at the expense of the youth in need of this care.USPATH and WPATH stand committed to continuing to provide best-practice guidelines to healthcare professionals around the world and in accordance with the law. And we stand ready to support practitioners, families, patients, and communities working to protect access to lawful care for transgender and gender diverse individuals.”
§ 5 — SAFE HARBOR ACCOUNTCreates an account funded by private sources to award grants to nonprofit organizations that provide funding for reproductive or gender-affirming health care services or collateral costs related to these services[...]§ 5 — SAFE HARBOR ACCOUNTCreates an account funded by private sources to award grants to nonprofit organizations that provide funding for reproductive or gender-affirming health care services or collateralcosts related to these services The bill creates the “safe harbor account” related to reproductive and gender-affirming health care. The account is a separate, nonlapsing account of the state treasurer administered by a board of trustees, and must contain funds received from private sources (e.g., gifts, grants, or donations) and earnings on those funds. The bill requires the treasurer to follow certain standards when investing the account’s funds.Under the bill, account-related administrative costs (for maintenance or disbursements) must be paid from the account itself and not from taxpayer funds, except the treasurer may use available staff resources to administer the account.The board must spend the account’s funds to award grants, in line with policies and procedures it adopts, to nonprofits that:1. provide funding for reproductive or gender-affirming health care services or the collateral costs (such as travel, lodging, or meals, but not the procedure itself) people incur receiving these services in the state; or2. serve LGBTQ+ youth or families in Connecticut by reimbursing or paying them directly for their collateral costs to receive reproductive or gender-affirming health care services in the state.EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2025
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
- The FACE Act Repeal Act of 2025, advanced by the committee, now goes to the House for a full vote.
- Though introduced under the Clinton Administration, prosecutions against pro-lifers under FACE ramped up in 2022 under the Biden-Harris DOJ when it appeared the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade.
- Multiple pro-lifers were imprisoned for peaceful protests at abortion businesses, though some had occurred years before and were not prosecuted locally.
- After President Trump pardoned 23 imprisoned pro-lifers, he said FACE Act prosecutions should only be brought in extreme cases.
- The repeal of the FACE Act will guarantee that pro-lifers won’t “face felony convictions for peaceful acts such as sidewalk counseling or singing hymns,” says Rep. Chip Roy.
WITNJun. 18, 2025State lawmakers are now getting involved in the debate of whether a huge American flag can fly on private property.NC House Bill 926, known as the Regulatory Reform Act of 2025, was revised yesterday during a committee meeting to include language that would limit a city’s ability to regulate the display of flags on private property.This comes as the City of Greenville filed a lawsuit earlier this month against RV dealership Camping World, following the ongoing dispute over the giant American flag flying over its Evans Street location.Greenville is seeking a mandatory injunction against Camping World after fining the dealership every day since January for violating city code.
However, Section 17a of H.B. 926 now reads, “No city shall adopt or enforce an ordinance that prohibits or restricts, or has the effect of prohibiting or restricting, a property owner from displaying a flag of the United States of America or the State of North Carolina, including prohibiting or restricting the size of the flag or the height of any associated flagpole, on the property owner’s property.”
Queers In HistoryBy Keith SternJune 17, 2025A major AI platform can't tell the difference between a word that symbolizes pride and an outdated insult."Queers in History: The Encyclopedia of Historic LGBT+" was written without the use of "Artificial Intelligence" (AI). However, we have been experimenting with AI tools like Copilot, Clyde, and ChatGPT to create marketing materials. Recently, we submitted our book’s standard description to Synthesia AI—billed as “The #1 AI Video Platform for Business”—in hopes of generating a rough draft of a video presentation. After we spent a significant amount of time preparing the materials, our project was rejected for “violating guidelines.” Our work was summarily deleted.Why were we rejected?No reason was provided other than that the content had been “automatically” moderated. We were told to expect an appeal link via email, but when the email arrived, there was no such link. Customer service? That gets an “F” for failure.
AP NewsBy LAURAN NEERGAARDJune 16, 2025A federal judge ruled Monday it was illegal for the Trump administration to cancel several hundred research grants, adding that the cuts raise serious questions about racial discrimination.U.S. District Judge William Young in Massachusetts said the administration’s process was “arbitrary and capricious” and that it did not follow long-held government rules and standards when it abruptly canceled grants deemed to focus on gender identity or diversity, equity and inclusion.In a hearing Monday on two cases calling for the grants to be restored, the judge pushed government lawyers to offer a formal definition of DEI, questioning how grants could be canceled for that reason when some were designed to study health disparities as Congress had directed.Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, went on to address what he called “a darker aspect” to the cases, calling it “palpably clear” that what was behind the government actions was “racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.”After 40 years on the bench, “I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,” Young added. He ended Monday’s hearing saying, “Have we no shame.”
Young appeared sympathetic Monday, questioning government lawyers over letters that claimed DEI studies “support unlawful discrimination.”“Where’s the support for that?” Young asked, begging the government for “any support, any rational explanation.”“Just saying it is not sufficient,” the judge continued.[...]“Point me to anywhere in the record where any particular grant or group of grants is being used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race,” the judge said. “From what I can see, it’s the reverse. But point it out to me.”Justice Department attorney Thomas Ports Jr., who is representing the defendants in this case, said there was “nothing that I can point the court to” to bolster the claim.“DEI is never defined” in the letters, Young noted. And while the Trump administration might take the “valid government position” to scrutinize affirmative action programs, “that’s not a license to discriminate,” the judge said.
“It is palpably clear these directives and the set of terminated grants here also are designed to frustrate, to stop research that may bear on the health–we are talking about health here–the health of Americans. Of our LGBTQ community,” Young said in remarks noted by ProPublica reporter Annie Waldman on Bluesky. “That’s appalling.”“Is it true of our society as a whole, have we fallen so low, have we no shame?” Young added.
The Maine Legislature rejected eight bills on Monday that targeted transgender student athletes, the transgender community and the Maine Human Rights Act. A broad coalition came together to organize in response, including equality organizations, health care providers, legal advocacy groups and everyday Mainers of all ages and backgrounds.“Thousands of Maine people showed up at the State House, called and emailed their legislators and stood strong against eight different bills that targeted our community,” said Gia Drew, Executive Director of EqualityMaine. “We are grateful for the members of the Maine Legislature who listened and helped to defeat these harmful bills. Our community is resilient, and we want every transgender person in Maine to know that they are loved, that they are not alone, and that we will stand with them.”The Legislature considered and rejected eight bills:LD 233, An Act to Prohibit Biological Males from Participating in School Athletic Programs and Activities Designed for Females When State Funding is Provided to the School;LD 868, An Act to Ensure Equity and Safety in Athletics, Restrooms, Changing Rooms and Housing at Elementary, Secondary and Postsecondary Schools;LD 1002, An Act to Protect Children’s Identification by Requiring Public Schools to Use the Name and Gender Specified on a Child’s Birth Certificate;LD 1134, An Act to Prohibit Males from Participating in Female Sports or Using Female Facilities;LD 1704, An Act to Prohibit a School Administrative Unit from Adopting a Policy that Allows a Student to Use a Restroom Designated for Use by the Opposite Sex.LD 1337, An act to Amend Maine Human Rights Act Regarding Female Athletes and Safety in Women’s Single-sex Shelters;LD 1432, An Act to Remove Consideration of Gender Identity from the Maine Human Rights Act; andLD 380, An Act to Amend Certain Laws Regarding Gender-affirming Health Care Services“Maine voters made clear 20 years ago that it’s wrong to discriminate against someone because they are transgender, and the Maine Law Court weighed in in 2014 to affirm that schools must treat transgender students equally, including access to school bathrooms or locker rooms,” said Mary Bonauto, Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law).
The Trump administration’s move sets back a decades-long effort to end the use of the material, which is widely banned in other countries.The New York TimesBy Hiroko TabuchiJune 16, 2025The Trump administration plans to reconsider a ban on the last type of asbestos still used in the United States, according to a court filing on Monday.The move, which could halt enforcement of the ban for several years during the reconsideration, is a major blow to a decades-long battle by health advocates to prohibit the carcinogenic mineral in all its forms.Known as “white” asbestos, chrysotile asbestos is banned in more than 50 countries for its link to lung cancer and mesothelioma, a cancer that forms in the lining of internal organs. White asbestos, however, has been imported for use in the United States for roofing materials, textiles and cement as well as gaskets, clutches, brake pads and other automotive parts. It is also used in chlorine manufacturing.Last year the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Joseph R. Biden, adopted a ban on the use, manufacture and import of chrysotile asbestos. It was the first legal constraint on a deadly substance since 2016, when Congress updated and strengthened the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act by requiring testing and regulation of thousands of chemicals used in everyday products.
So all this crap is the result of Trump voiding the United Nation's Treaty to stop Iran's atomic bomb production. We had a working treaty that everyone was abiding by but Trump tore it up because he didn't do it and he wanted spite President Obama.Yes, you're correct. President Barack Obama played a pivotal role in negotiating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, which was finalized in July 2015. This agreement aimed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of certain international sanctions.Key Provisions of the JCPOAUnder the JCPOA, Iran committed to:
- Reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98%, limiting it to 300 kilograms of 3.67% enriched Reducing the number of its centrifuges by two-thirds, with all excess centrifuges placed under international supervision.
- Modifying its Arak reactor so that it could not produce weapons-grade plutonium and agreeing to ship out all spent fuel.
- Allowing unprecedented access for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to monitor Iran's nuclear facilities and supply chain.
In return, Iran received phased sanctions relief, which was contingent upon its compliance with the agreement.U.S. Withdrawal and AftermathIn May 2018, President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the JCPOA, citing concerns that the deal did not address Iran's missile program and regional activities. Following the U.S. withdrawal, Iran began to reduce its compliance with the agreement, including increasing uranium enrichment levels.As of June 2025, the situation remains tense. Iran has signaled a potential shift in its nuclear commitments, including the possibility of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in response to Israeli military actions against its nuclear facilities.
Donald Trump abandoned the Iran nuclear deal to spite Barack Obama, according to a leaked memo written by the UK's former ambassador in the US.BBC News14 July 2019Sir Kim Darroch described the move as an act of "diplomatic vandalism", according to the Mail on Sunday.The paper says the memo was written after the then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appealed to the US in 2018 to stick with the deal.The latest leak came despite the Met Police warning against publication.The first memos criticising President Trump's administration, which emerged a week ago, prompted a furious reaction from the US president and resulted in Sir Kim resigning from his role.What have we learnt from the latest leak?The Mail on Sunday reports that Sir Kim wrote to Mr Johnson informing him Republican President Trump appeared to be abandoning the nuclear deal for "personality reasons" - because the pact had been agreed by his Democrat predecessor, Barack Obama.Under the 2015 deal backed by the US and five other nations, Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.However, President Trump said he did not think that the deal went far enough in curtailing Iran's nuclear ambitions and reinstated US sanctions after withdrawing from it in May 2018.
Boston Globe“Your zip code is a bigger determinant of how you do in health than many other things,” says Dr. Manisha Juthani, MD, Connecticut Department of Public Health commissioner.New England states consistently rank among the healthiest in the United States. In the 2024 U.S. News & World Report ranking, Massachusetts held the #1 spot, Connecticut #6, Rhode Island #7, and Vermont #10. Maine and New Hampshire have ranked high for health care among other lists as well over the years. The ranking factors in rates of mortality, infant mortality, obesity, smoking, suicide, and poor mental health in adults.New England’s strong outcomes reflect decades of effective policy decisions and investments in public health. By examining New England’s approach, health care leaders can identify key factors contributing to better health and explore how other states might replicate the region’s success.
“Making public health investments, which often are cheaper and more upstream, can help prevent so much of the very expensive health care later on,” Dr. Juthani says. This includes providing education about and access to screenings and innovative health care interventions that reach families across the state.
Summary:The differences in life expectancy between New England and the South are rooted in structural inequalities, policy differences, and health behavior trends that accumulate over time. Wealthier, better-educated populations with better access to healthcare tend to live longer.
The president made his comments in Canada as global leaders met for the G7 summit.The Daily BeastBy Farrah TomazinJun. 16 2025President Donald Trump has once again rebuked weather forecasters for predicting rain on his birthday military parade, raising the issue at the G7 Leaders’ Summit in Canada.During a photo opportunity with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and his wife, Trump brought up the parade forecast.“We had the parade the other day. They said 100 percent chance of rain. It didn’t rain,” Trump told Carney as the Canadian prime minister smiled politely.[...]In the leadup to the parade, the National Weather Service had predicted rain—and possibly thunderstorms—in Washington, D.C., just as the tanks and troops rolled in. However, in the end, there was only a slight drizzle, summer mugginess, and, according to some attendees, low energy.
ReutersBy Leah Douglas, Ted Hesson and Nathan LayneJune 3, 2025Summary
- Agency head Richardson made comment on second day of hurricane season
- Richardson said no changes to agency's disaster plan this year
- FEMA cuts have raised concern about agency capacity to respond to natural disasters
Staff of the Federal Emergency Management Agency were left baffled on Monday after the head of the U.S. disaster agency said he had not been aware the country has a hurricane season, according to four sources familiar with the situation.The remark was made during a briefing by David Richardson, who has led FEMA since early May. It was not clear to staff whether he meant it literally, as a joke, or in some other context.[...]The spokesperson said under Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Richardson "FEMA is shifting from bloated, DC-centric dead weight to a lean, deployable disaster force that empowers state actors to provide relief for their citizens."
At a town hall in Dorchester, AGs from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont offer a united front against the Trump administration.Commonwealth Beaconby Jennifer SmithMay 16, 2025ATTORNEYS GENERAL FROM around New England struck a defiant posture at a town hall gathering on Friday evening. Together they pledged that nothing is off the table when it comes to holding immigration officials accountable, lauded the courts for standing firm so far, and pointed at an ever-growing pile of litigation targeting the Trump administration’s actions on everything from energy policy to anti-discrimination law.“All of us probably have a target on our back,” Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said, speaking from the IBEW Local 103 union hall in Dorchester. “But we say bring it on.”The town hall included the region’s Democratic AGs – Campbell, William Tong of Connecticut, Peter Neronha of Rhode Island, Charity Clark of Vermont, and Aaron Frey of Maine. Billed as “United in Justice,” the gathering was distinctly aimed at Trump administration policies that the group has declared will damage the region and its residents.Attorneys general, advocacy organizations, and individuals have leveled dozens of lawsuits at the Trump administration. They say that executive actions targeting immigration, the global economy, public health and scientific research funding, higher education, and marginalized groups are “unlawful” and “damaging.”
- Public Health Funding Cuts: A coalition of 23 states and Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over the abrupt rollback of $12 billion in public health funding. The plaintiffs argue that these cuts jeopardize essential health services and workforce stability.
- Forced-Reset Trigger Devices: Sixteen states and D.C. have sued the Trump administration over a settlement that allows the sale and return of forced-reset triggers—devices that enable semi-automatic rifles to fire more rapidly, akin to machine guns. The lawsuit contends that this move violates federal law and poses a public safety risk.
- Voting Rights Executive Order: Nineteen states challenged an executive order mandating proof of citizenship for voter registration and restricting the counting of mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day. The lawsuit asserts that the order infringes upon states' constitutional authority to regulate elections.
- Federal Employee Terminations: A lawsuit filed by the District of Columbia, Maryland, and 18 other states seeks the reinstatement of federal employees terminated since mid-February 2025. The plaintiffs argue that these dismissals were unlawful and lacked due process.
- Immigration Enforcement Funding Conditions: A coalition of 20 states sued the Trump administration over new conditions tied to federal funding, requiring states to assist in federal immigration enforcement or risk losing critical resources for public safety and infrastructure.
- Environmental Regulations: California, supported by ten other states, filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's move to block California's ban on new gas-powered vehicles by 2035 and to overturn several state emissions regulations.
- LGBTQ+ and DEI Program Defunding: A federal judge issued an injunction blocking the enforcement of three executive orders aimed at defunding LGBTQ+ and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. The lawsuit, filed by nine organizations across six states, argued that these orders violated constitutional rights and federal statutes.
PolitifactBy Madison CzopekJune 15, 2025If Your Time is short
- Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz in 2019 reappointed Vance Boelter to a state board focused on Minnesota’s workforce. Boelter had first been appointed to the board by a prior governor.
- Boelter was named a suspect in the June 14 killing of state Rep. Melissa Hortman, a former Democratic speaker, and her husband Mark, and the shootings of state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife Yvette.
- Walz’s spokesperson said the governor had no relationship with Boelter. And there is no indication that Walz viewed Hortman or Hoffman as political rivals; he referred to Hortman as a dear friend.
Hours after the shooting of two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses, prominent conservative influencers spun unsubstantiated theories that the suspect was a left-wing extremist who targeted the Democratic-aligned leaders for voting against party lines, and did so with the blessing of the state’s top Democrat, Gov. Tim Walz.
The Los Angeles TimesBy Sonja SharpJune 12, 2025Under mounting pressure from the Trump administration, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles will shutter its longstanding healthcare program for trans children and young adults this summer, according to emails reviewed by The Times.The Center for Transyouth Health and Development began telling its nearly 3,000 patient families of the closure on Thursday, saying there was “no viable alternative” that would allow the safety-net hospital to continue specialized care.“There is no doubt that this is a painful and significant change to our organization and a challenge to CHLA’s mission, vision, and values,” hospital executives wrote to staff in a Thursday morning email.
Hospitals That Have Ceased Gender-Affirming Care for Minors
- Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA): Announced the closure of its Center for Transyouth Health and Development, effective July 22, 2025, due to concerns over federal funding and political pressures.
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC): Closed its GENECIS clinic in late 2021, ceasing new prescriptions for puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender patients.
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW): Ended its partnership with Children’s Health to operate the GENECIS clinic, stopping new gender-affirming treatments for minors.
- Children’s Medical Center Dallas: Scaled back gender-affirming care, ceasing new hormone therapy and puberty blockers for minors.
- Children’s National Hospital (Washington, D.C.): Paused all puberty blockers and hormone therapy prescriptions for transgender youth in January 2025.
- VCU Health and Children’s Hospital of Richmond (Virginia): Suspended gender-affirming medications and surgeries for those under 19 in early 2025, later resuming care for existing patients but pausing new ones.
- Boston Children’s Hospital: Reportedly began canceling gender-affirming care appointments scheduled for minors in early 2025.
- Lurie Children’s Hospital (Chicago): Canceled gender-affirming surgeries for minors following federal executive orders in early 2025.
- Seattle Children’s Hospital (Washington State): Postponed some gender-affirming surgeries for patients under 19 in early 2025.
- New York-Presbyterian Hospital and Mount Sinai Health (New York): Canceled some appointments for gender-affirming care in early 2025.
- Essence Clinic at St. Luke’s Children’s Hospital (Boise, Idaho): Expected to cease providing transition procedures for children due to state legislation banning the practice.
- University of Oklahoma Children’s Hospital: Announced cessation of gender transition procedures for minors in response to state legislation.
- University of Utah Transgender Health Program: Reduced transition procedures in light of state law, while allowing some exceptions for minors with a documented gender dysphoria diagnosis prior to January 28, 2023.
- West Virginia University Medicine: Clinics are expected to cease transition procedures on minors due to state legislation.
- University of Florida Health’s Youth Gender Program: Expected to cease transition procedures on minors due to state legislation.
- Indiana University Health: Expected to cease transition procedures on minors due to state legislation.
- University of Iowa Health Care: Clinics are expected to cease transition procedures on minors due to state legislation.
- Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital: Expected to cease transition procedures on minors due to state legislation.
- Baylor College of Medicine (Texas): Expected to cease transition procedures on minors due to state legislation.
- Medical University of South Carolina: Expected to cease transition procedures on minors due to state legislation.
The press release goes in to say,Attorney General William Tong today joined a coalition of 18 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland supporting Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality, and individual patients and their families, in their lawsuit against the Trump Administration.On February 4, 2025, PFLAG challenged President Trump’s Executive Orders 14168 and 14187 targeting transgender individuals by stating that gender identity was a “false” idea and by attempting to strip federal funding from institutions that provide life-saving gender affirming care for young people under the age of 19. The amici states argue that this action blatantly and unlawfully discriminates against transgender youth based on their identity.“In Connecticut, we don’t inject politics into private family medical decisions, and we don’t let adults bully our kids. It’s that simple,” said Attorney General Tong. “I stand with the parents, kids and doctors fighting for access to life-saving healthcare in the face of Trump’s blatantly discriminatory order.”
While such care remains available in Connecticut, this Executive Order has undeniably and unacceptably scared providers and patients here and across the country. Shortly after PFLAG filed their lawsuit, AG Tong joined 18 other attorneys general in issuing a statement reaffirming their commitment to protecting access to gender-affirming care, reminding providers that federal courts have stopped the Administration from withholding federal funding from institutions, including ones that provide gender-affirming care, and making clear that no federal law prohibits or criminalizes gender affirming care.
By Valerie RichardsonThe Washington TimesJune 10, 2025The House Judiciary Committee passed legislation Tuesday to repeal the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a law wielded by the Biden administration to prosecute more than 30 pro-life activists, in some cases sending them to jail.The panel voted 13-10 to advance H.R. 589, the bill introduced by Rep. Chip Roy, Texas Republican, after a surge in the number of prosecutions under the FACE Act, which criminalizes protests that obstruct access to abortion clinics as well as pro-life pregnancy centers.Even so, Mr. Roy said 92% of the FACE Act prosecutions from 2021 to 2024 were brought against pro-life activists protesting at abortion clinics. Just 8% of cases targeted pro-choice agitators, despite nearly 100 attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and offices after May 2022.
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
- The FACE Act Repeal Act of 2025, advanced by the committee, now goes to the House for a full vote.
- Though introduced under the Clinton Administration, prosecutions against pro-lifers under FACE ramped up in 2022 under the Biden-Harris DOJ when it appeared the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade.
- Multiple pro-lifers were imprisoned for peaceful protests at abortion businesses, though some had occurred years before and were not prosecuted locally.
- After President Trump pardoned 23 imprisoned pro-lifers, he said FACE Act prosecutions should only be brought in extreme cases.
- The repeal of the FACE Act will guarantee that pro-lifers won’t “face felony convictions for peaceful acts such as sidewalk counseling or singing hymns,” says Rep. Chip Roy.
“It is time to end the weaponization of the FACE Act against peaceful, First Amendment protected speech,” he said.
Anti-abortion violence dropped by 30% when the FACE Act was first signed into law. The law is arguably now more important than ever, since federal abortion protections fell in 2022 and violence against providers and clinics have skyrocketed. The year the Supreme Court repealed Roe v. Wade, there was a 538% increase in people obstructing clinic entrances, a 913% increase in stalking of clinic staff and a 133% increase in bomb threats, according to a National Abortion Federation report.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced the FACE Act Repeal Act of 2025 earlier this year, claiming that President Joe Biden’s administration weaponized the law to prosecute anti-abortion activists. The repeal is part of a yearslong push by the GOP to stoke a false narrative that Democrats are waging a war against the anti-abortion religious right. Republican support for the bill comes less than a month after a California fertility clinic was bombed and one person died.
In 2021, Governor Lamont signed a law (Public Act 21-17) that bars limited services pregnancy centers or “crisis pregnancy centers” from using:
- False, misleading, or deceptive language about the services they provide
- Language about offering services that the center has no intention of providing
And...In May 2022, Governor Lamont signed Public Act 22-19, a first-in-the-nation law that provides important protections for medical providers and patients seeking abortion care in Connecticut.This law also:
- Allows more types of practitioners to perform certain abortion-related care: Advanced practice clinicians, registered nurses (APRNs), nurse-midwives, and physician assistants (PAs) can now receive training to provide aspiration abortion care.
- Provides certain legal protections from lawsuits and harassment for Connecticut abortion providers and anyone traveling to Connecticut for abortion care.
- Provides new protections against disclosing medical information about abortions without the patient's consent
- Forbids Connecticut's public officials from using any public resources to assist in prosecuting or civilly suing someone for performing or receiving abortion services that are legal in Connecticut
Key NewsBy LINDA GRIST CUNNINGHAMJune 14, 2025The North Roosevelt Boulevard Promenade, that palm-lined, tourist-attracting raceway alongside the car lanes, is shockingly empty these days.Gone are scores of locals on their e-bikes. They were easy to recognize. Destination-focused, wearing the branded uniforms of their local employers, ready for another day of working water sports, construction, landscaping, office, retail, healthcare and hospitality jobs. Same routine for the trip home at the end of the day.Many are of Haitian, Cuban, Bahamian, Eastern European, Venezuelan, Nicaraguan and Guatemalan descent. Some are born-and-bred U.S. citizens or immigrants with legal status to be here. Some, I am certain, have lived and worked here for years without the requisite paperwork. They are our neighbors, our families, our friends or the strangers whose jobs serve the rest of us, often virtually invisibly.[...]Key West and the Keys have always had significant federal immigration presence simply because we are a historic U.S. gateway for Cuba, Haiti and the Bahamas. But ICE presence on the island today is noticeably more pronounced than even a year ago — and more aggressive.
Feeling helpless? Do something that’s both small and extraordinary: Say aloud to those you know: “This is wrong. This is not who we are nor who we want to become.” Do it privately if you must. Do it publicly as I am doing, even in the face of warnings from state and the federal governments that my protests, my words, are grounds for retaliation.Silence is not an option. I want those e-bikes back on the boulevard — even if they are going too fast.
AP NewsBy PETER SMITHJune 10, 2025Southern Baptist delegates at their national meeting overwhelmingly endorsed a ban on same-sex marriage — including a call for a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 10-year-old precedent legalizing it nationwide.They also called for legislators to curtail sports betting and to support policies that promote childbearing.The votes Tuesday came at the gathering of more than 10,000 church representatives at the annual meeting of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination.The wide-ranging resolution doesn’t use the word “ban,” but it left no room for legal same-sex marriage in calling for the “overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God’s design for marriage and family.” Further, the resolution affirmatively calls “for laws that affirm marriage between one man and one women.”
A proposed resolution says legislators have a duty to “pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law — about marriage, sex, human life, and family” and to oppose laws contradicting “what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.”
And conservatives of various stripes have echoed one of the resolution’s call for pro-natalist policies and its decrying of “willful childlessness which contributes to a declining fertility rate.”
An Army official said images of troops booing Democrats was regrettable.ABC NewsBy Anne FlahertyJune 12, 2025The Army is reviewing how pro-President Donald Trump merchandise wound up being sold on one of its bases this week at a service-sponsored event orchestrated by the White House and the president's supporters.Earlier this week, Trump spoke at Fort Bragg in North Carolina in celebration of the Army's 250th birthday. At the event, vendors were spotted selling Trump merchandise -- including "Make America Great Again" hats and other "America First" swag. The practice is likely at odds with long-standing Defense Department policy, which prohibits troops from wearing political garb such as hats or flags or expressing their political opinion while in uniform.The policy is intended to preserve America's tradition of apolitical military forces, serving at the behest of a democratically elected president regardless of party.
While the parade was ostensibly to honor the U.S. Army’s 250th birthday, and not Trump’s 79th, Vance hyped Trump’s remarks as “the main event” of the night.HuffPostBy S.V. DateJune 14, 2025President Donald Trump finally got his North Korea-style military parade for his birthday Saturday, which featured tanks and rocket launchers rolling down the streets of the capital city before smaller-than-expected crowds.“Every other country celebrates their victories, it’s about time America did too,” Trump said in a brief, eight-minute speech.It followed the two-hour parade down Constitution Avenue, during which Trump primarily sat, appeared bored, but occasionally stood to salute the passing troops and military hardware.Trump and his administration have claimed that the parade was actually to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Army’s founding by the Continental Congress in 1775, not Trump’s 79th. It’s unclear whether the Navy and the Marine Corps, branches also founded in 1775, will similarly get $45 million parades this year. Neither Trump nor the Pentagon has mentioned any such plans.
Organizers estimated that more than 5 million people participated in more 2,000 planned protests, according to spokesperson Eunic Ortiz. Events were also held in Germany and France, according to the AP. While protests were peaceful, police in Culpeper, Va., arrested a man who "intentionally accelerated his vehicle into the dispersing crowd," at the end of a protest. One person was hit, but no one was hurt, police said.
Past events have proven that Donald Trump's ego can't handle dwindling crowd sizes. So, we imagine his reaction behind the scenes regarding the attendance numbers for his military parade on June 14 might not be so good. It was reported that 200,000 people were estimated to attend his birthday celebration, but judging by videos of the event, the turnout was a lot lower than expected. Mark Seagraves, a reporter for NBC 4 in D.C., posted a video on X, formerly Twitter, exposing the disappointing number of people who actually showed up to the party. "The #Army250 parade starting 30 minutes early due to incoming weather. Crowd nowhere near the 200,000 expected," Seagraves wrote.
What do you think of the parade?Yesterday, June 14, 2025, saw a stark contrast in public gatherings across the United States: President Trump's military parade in Washington D.C. and the nationwide "No Kings" protests. Here's a comparison and contrast of their attendance:## Trump's Military Parade (Washington D.C.)**Attendance:*** **Lower than Anticipated:** Official predictions and Secret Service estimates suggested around 200,000 people would attend the parade and associated events. However, reports from the ground indicated that attendance "fell far short of early predictions" and there were "considerably fewer people on the National Mall" than for typical large-scale events like the Fourth of July. Some news outlets even described the turnout as "underwhelming" or a "flop."* **Targeted Audience:** The crowd that did attend appeared to be largely supportive of President Trump, with many wearing "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) hats and shirts.* **Focus:** The parade was explicitly organized to commemorate the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, coinciding with President Trump's 79th birthday. It featured thousands of soldiers, military vehicles (including tanks), and aircraft, showcasing military history and modern capabilities. The event aimed to be a display of national strength and pride, with President Trump delivering remarks defending the decision to hold the celebration.**Attendance:*** **Widespread and Significant:** The "No Kings" protests were far more geographically dispersed, occurring in "hundreds" to "nearly 2,000" cities and towns across the U.S.* **High Numbers:** Organizers claimed "millions of participants" nationwide. While precise, independently verified numbers for all locations are hard to come by, specific city estimates indicate very large turnouts:* **Los Angeles:** Over 200,000 people (organizers' estimate).* **New York City:** "Tens of thousands," with some sources reporting over 50,000.* **Philadelphia:** Around 100,000.* **Chicago:** Estimated at 75,000 by organizers (police initially estimated 20,000).* **Seattle:** "Tens of thousands" (Seattle Police).* **Boston:** Combined with Pride marches, some local reports suggested over 1 million people.* **Dallas:** Over 11,000.* **Hartford, CT:** 9,000-10,000 (Capitol Police estimate).* Numerous other cities and towns, even small communities, saw hundreds to thousands of participants.* **Diverse Participants:** Protests drew diverse crowds united by a common anti-Trump sentiment, expressing concerns about authoritarianism, immigration policies, and the militarization of democracy. Many carried signs with messages like "No Kings Since 1776," "Trump Must Go Now," and "F—K ICE."* **Focus:** The protests were a direct counter to the Trump administration's policies and the perceived nature of the military parade. The "No Kings" theme explicitly rejected what organizers viewed as an authoritarian approach to governance, comparing Trump's actions to those of a monarch rather than a democratically elected president. The protests were also fueled by recent escalations in federal immigration enforcement.
