WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the nation’s anti-discrimination laws apply equally to all employees, regardless of whether those complaining of bias are white or Black, gay or straight.
In a short and unanimous opinion, the justices rejected as outdated and mistaken the view that “members of a majority group” must show more evidence of discrimination before they can sue and win.
Instead, the justices said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has always prohibited workplace discrimination against “any individual” who suffers discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin and sex, including sexual orientation.
The law “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said.
The ruling revives a discrimination lawsuit brought by Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who said she was demoted and discriminated against by a lesbian who became her supervisor. She was then replaced by a gay man who had less experience.
Ames is a heterosexual woman. She sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, and alleged she was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation.
But a federal judge rejected her discrimination claim, and the 6th Circuit Court in Cincinnati affirmed that decision. In doing so, the judges said she could not point to “background circumstances” or statistical evidence suggesting that hers was the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
Law students at the University of Virginia Law School appealed her case to the Supreme Court. They pointed out that the 6th Circuit and several other courts continue to use an outdated, two-track approach to discrimination claims.
This is not the standard in much of the nation, however. For example, they said the 9th Circuit Court based in California does not follow this approach, which would require more proof of discrimination from whites or men or heterosexuals.
But the law students said the court should hear the Ames case and clarify the law nationwide.
Although the case did not directly involve DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion, it gained added attention because of President Trump’s drive to rid the government of DEI policies.
Jackson said the Supreme Court for more than 50 years has steadily rejected the view that discrimination laws apply differently to different groups of people.
In Griggs vs. Duke Power in 1971, “we said that ‘[d]iscriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed.’”
A few years later, the court rejected the two-track approach, she said, “holding that Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] prohibited racial discrimination against the white petitioners in th[at] case upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes.”
Lawyers for the Biden and Trump administrations had urged the court to overrule the 6th Circuit and make clear there is no double standard for deciding discrimination claims
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the “majority” in the workplace differs by workplace.
“Women make up the majority of employees in certain industries, such as teaching and nursing, but the minority in other industries, such as construction.”
“Defining the ‘majority’ is even more difficult in the context of race,” he wrote. “American families have become increasingly multicultural, and attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time.”
The court’s ruling in Ames vs. Ohio Department of Youth Services said the Ohio court should reopen and reconsider Ames’ claim of discrimination.
Experts in discrimination law said the decision will have an effect in some regions but not others.
“As a practical matter, more ‘reverse discrimination’ lawsuits may survive a motion to dismiss,” said Evan Parness, an attorney at the Covington law firm in New York.
Although the decision doesn’t significantly change how federal district courts in California operate, it has implications for some courts in other parts of the country that require the higher burden of proof, said Elizabeth Beske, professor of law at American University in Washington.
The “background circumstances” rule was first applied in D.C. courts, after a white man sued the Baltimore and Ohio railroad company arguing he was discriminated against when jobs were instead given to Black and female applicants. The court held that “it defie[d] common sense to suggest that the promotion of a Black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white co-workers in our present society.”
Columbia Law professor Olatunde C. Johnson said the “opinion is not surprising. It depends on a straightforward and sensible statutory reading of Title VII. The 6th Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ approach was not typical, so I don’t expect the case to dramatically change employment discrimination litigation on the ground.”
Brian McGinnis, an attorney with the firm Fox Rothschild, said because the decision was unanimous, which is rare, it shows an uncontroversial and “pretty straightforward” perspective that there is no historical basis in case law for requiring extra proof from white, heterosexual or other majority groups.
And it represents an effort by the court to streamline and eliminate the need for additional steps in litigation, he said.
There is some question as to how the change is applied, but McGinnis doesn’t expect any issues.
“There is some potential for mischief, but I don’t think it will have much change on the day-to-day operations of many employers or courts,” McGinnis said. “The short answer is, it should not change much.”
Savage reported from Washington and Hussain from Los Angeles.
The Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) plans to lift its 10-year ban on issuing new banking licenses on July 1.
This change will open the market to fintechs and digital banks, which is expected to increase market competition and, possibly, bank consolidations as small banks are forced to merge or exit the industry.
“Fintechs will drive innovation in the sector, prompting traditional banks to adopt new technologies to stay competitive,” says Anne Kibisu, a banking analyst at Deloitte Kenya.
New and existing banks will face new capital requirements enacted in December 2024 under the Business Laws (Amendment) Act 2024. By 2026, banks will be required to maintain KES10 billion ($77 million) in capital.
This development follows a similar capital increase in 2009, when the requirement was raised from KES250 million to KES1 billion. That change prompted mergers, including KCB’s acquisition of National Bank in 2019. Analysts predict a similar wave of consolidation as smaller banks struggle to meet the new capital targets.
The central bank reports that 12 banks face a combined capital shortfall of KES11.8 billion. To comply with the new requirements, these banks needed to raise KES3 billion by December 2024, KES6 billion this year, and eventually KES10 billion by 2026.
“These increased capital thresholds are designed to help banks absorb economic shocks and continue supporting sustainable growth,” said CBK Governor Kamau Thugge.
Since December 2023, 27 of Kenya’s 39 licensed banks have met the new capital requirement. The remaining 12, primarily smaller banks with limited branch networks, now face significant pressure to recapitalize or merge with larger institutions.
“We are actively exploring strategic partnerships to meet the new capital requirements,” said an executive from an affected bank. “Mergers are also being considered.”
The CBK is expected to guide the consolidation process, as it did during the 2015-2016 banking crisis, which saw the collapse of Imperial Bank and Chase Bank. By 2027, Kenya’s banking sector is expected to be more robust and consolidated.
The U.S. Justice Department ratcheted up its efforts to block transgender athletes from competing in school sports in California by warning school districts Monday that they will face legal trouble if they don’t break from the state and bar such athletes from competition within days.
The new warning followed similar threats by the Trump administration to the state and the California Interscholastic Federation, which governs youth sports and requires transgender athletes be allowed to compete. It also comes after AB Hernandez, a 16-year-old transgender junior from Jurupa Valley High School, won multiple medals at the state high school track and field championships on Saturday, despite a directive from President Trump that she not be allowed to compete.
Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon — a conservative California lawyer who focused on challenging LGBTQ+-friendly state laws before being appointed by Trump to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division — wrote in a Monday letter to school districts that continuing to comply with CIF rules allowing transgender athletes to compete “would deprive girls of athletic opportunities and benefits based solely on their biological sex,” in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
To “avoid legal liability” for such violations, Dhillon wrote, each district must “certify in writing” by June 9 that it is no longer complying with the federation’s rules and barring transgender athletes from competition.
Dhillon said on the social media platform X that her office put “1600+ California schools on blast for violating equal protection in girls’ sports.”
Dhillon’s letter made no mention of the CIF’s rule change last week — after Trump threatened to revoke federal funding from California if Hernandez competed in the state championships. The change allowed any cisgender girl bumped from qualifying for event finals by a transgender athlete to compete anyway. It also ensured cisgender girls were awarded medals in every race, regardless of how Hernandez placed.
The policy was intended as a compromise, but it drew little support from those on the conservative right demanding a full ban on transgender athletes.
In addition to Trump’s funding threat, Dhillon’s office last week announced it was launching an investigation into the state, the interscholastic federation and the Jurupa Unified School District, where Hernandez competes.
A spokesperson for California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office said officials there were “very concerned with the Trump Administration’s ongoing threats to California schools and remain committed to defending and upholding California laws and all additional laws which ensure the rights of students — including transgender students — to be free from discrimination and harassment.”
The office was “reviewing the letter and closely monitoring the Trump Administration’s actions in this space,” the spokesperson said.
Elizabeth Sanders, a spokesperson for the California Department of Education, said the agency had no comment on Dhillon’s letter Monday but was “preparing to send guidance” out to districts Tuesday. She said California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond also had no response Monday.
The Los Angeles Unified School District declined to comment. Other local districts around L.A. did not respond to requests for comment.
LGBTQ+ advocates criticized Dhillon’s letter, calling it the latest proof that the Trump administration is not actually concerned with protecting cisgender athletes but with targeting transgender kids to score political points.
Shannon Minter, vice president of legal at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, helped draft the interscholastic federation’s original rules allowing transgender athletes to compete, and also supports the new rule — which he said ensures that both transgender and cisgender athletes get to compete.
At last weekend’s meet, for example, Hernandez’s competing did not push any cisgender girls out of competition.
Hernandez took gold in both the girls’ triple jump and girls’ high jump, and placed second in the girls’ long jump — but wasn’t alone in any of those spots.
For the triple jump, she stood on the podium alongside a cisgender girl who was also given gold. For the high jump, she shared the podium with two cisgender girls with whom she tied. For the long jump, she shared the second-place podium spot with a cisgender girl who also was awarded silver.
The new rule addressed “the concerns people had about taking opportunities away from non-transgender girls, and it makes sure that cannot happen — it literally eliminates that concern altogether,” Minter said.
By ignoring the new rules, he said, Dhillon’s letter “shows what we already knew, which is that this administration isn’t concerned at all about protecting athletic opportunities for girls, this is just about bias against transgender people — pure and simple.”
Critics of transgender youth participating in sports, meanwhile, cheered Dhillon’s letter as a major victory.
Sophia Lorey, outreach director for the conservative California Family Council, said it was “huge.” Lorey was kicked out of the state championships Saturday after handing out fliers urging people to sign a petition calling on the interscholastic federation to change its policies.
“Here we gooooo!” Lorey wrote on X. “As a born & raised Californian who played soccer through college — I am beyond grateful.”
At least a handful of California school districts with conservative elected leaders would be eager to comply with the new directive.
On April 17, the Chino Valley Unified school board unanimously approved a resolution titled “Supporting Title IX and Fairness in Girls’ Interscholastic Sports.” The resolution stated that “biological differences between male and female athletes can create inherent advantage in competitive sports, particularly in categories designated specifically for girls.”
The school system called on state governing bodies to uphold protections for girls in sports under Title IX, a 1972 federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding.
In April, the school system also filed a Title IX complaint with the federal Justice Department against Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Department of Education, Thurmond and the California Interscholastic Federation.
The complaint said Chino Valley was “now caught between conflicting state and federal directives” and was requesting “urgent federal intervention.”
Sonja Shaw, president of the Chino Valley Unified school board, wrote on X that Dhillon’s letter was “a historic win” for parents, their daughters, the nation and “truth.”
“We will not bend. We will not compromise. We will protect our daughters at all costs,” wrote Shaw, who is running for state superintendent of public instruction. “The tide is turning. The silence is broken. And we are just getting started.”
Shaw also suggested that the support from the Trump administration could encourage her school system to take more aggressive action.
“I’m bringing this matter forward at our next board meeting,” Shaw said. “We will not comply with insanity. We will not be bullied into silence. We will not betray our girls to please radicals.”
Hernandez’s mother, Nereyda Hernandez, could not be reached Monday, but has previously said that it was heartbreaking to see her child being attacked “simply for being who they are,” and despite following all California laws and policies for competing.
She begged Trump to reconsider his efforts to oust transgender girls from sports.
“My child is a transgender student-athlete, a hardworking, disciplined, and passionate young person who just wants to play sports, continue to build friendships, and grow into their fullest potential like any other child,” she said.
WASHINGTON — Dressed in a pink pullover, the 17-year-old girl rested her head in her hands, weighing her bleak options from the empty room of a shelter in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
During a video call into an immigration courtroom in Manhattan, she listened as a lawyer explained to a judge how new regulations imposed by President Trump’s administration — for DNA testing, income verification and more — have hobbled efforts to reunite with her parents in the U.S. for more than 70 days.
As the administration’s aggressive efforts to curtail migration have taken shape, including unparalleled removals of men to prisons in other countries, migrant children are being separated for long periods from the relatives they had hoped to live with after crossing into the U.S.
Under the Trump rules, migrant children have stayed in shelters an average of 217 days before being released to family members, according to new data from the Health and Human Services Department’s Office of Refugee Resettlement. During the Biden administration, migrant children spent an average of 35 days in shelters before being released to relatives.
“Collectively, these policy changes have resulted in children across the country being separated from their loving families, while the government denies their release, unnecessarily prolonging their detention,” lawyers for the National Center for Youth Law argued in court documents submitted May 8.
The Trump administration, however, has argued that the new rules will ensure the children are put in safe homes and prevent traffickers from illegally bringing children into the country.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health secretary, told lawmakers in Congress this month: “Nobody gets a kid without showing that they are a family member.”
The family situation for the 17-year-old, and her 14-year-old brother who came with her from the Dominican Republic, is complicated. Their parents, who were living apart, were already in the U.S. Their children were trying to reunite with them to leave behind a problematic living situation with a stepmother in their home country.
After 70 days in detention, the teen girl seemed to wonder if she would ever get back to her mother or father in the U.S. If she agreed to leave America, she asked the judge, how quickly would she be sent back to her home country?
“Pretty soon,” the judge said, before adding: “It doesn’t feel nice to be in that shelter all the time.”
The siblings, whom the Associated Press agreed not to identify at the request of their mother and because they are minors, are not alone. Thousands of children have made the trek from Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico and other countries, often alone on the promise of settling with a family member already in the U.S.
They’ve faced longer waits in federal custody as officials perform DNA testing, verify family members’ incomes and inspect homes before releasing the children. The new rules also require adults who sponsor children to provide U.S.-issued identification.
The federal government released only 45 children to sponsors last month, even as more than 2,200 children remained in custody.
Child stays in shelter as Trump requires DNA testing
Under the Biden administration, officials tried to release children to eligible adult sponsors within 30 days, reuniting many families quickly. But the approach also yielded errors, with some children being released to adults who forced them to work illegally, or to people who provided clearly false identification and addresses.
Trump’s Republican administration has said its requirements will prevent children from being placed in homes where they may be at risk for abuse or exploited for child labor. Officials are conducting a review of 65,000 “notices of concerns” that were submitted to the federal government involving thousands of children who have been placed with adult sponsors since 2023.
Already, the Justice Department indicted a man on allegations he enticed a 14-year-old girl to travel from Guatemala to the U.S., then falsely claimed she was his sister to gain custody as her sponsor.
DNA testing and ID requirements for child protection are taking time
Immigration advocacy groups have sued the Trump administration seeking to block the more rigorous requirements on behalf of parents and adult siblings who are waiting to bring migrant children into their homes.
“We have a lot of children stuck … simply because they are awaiting DNA testing,” immigration lawyer Tatine Darker, of Church World Service, told the Manhattan judge as she sat next to the Dominican girl.
Five other children appeared in court that day from shelters in New York and New England, all saying they experienced delays in being released to their relatives.
The Trump administration’s latest guidance on DNA testing says the process generally takes at least two weeks, when accounting for case review and shipping results.
But some relatives have waited a month or longer just to get a test, said Molly Chew, a legal aide at Vecina. The organization is ending its work supporting guardians in reunification because of federal funding cuts and other legal and political challenges to juvenile immigration programs. DNA Diagnostics Centers, which is conducting the tests for the federal government, did not respond to a request for comment.
Plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit filed by the National Center for Youth Law have also cataloged long wait times and slow DNA results. One mother in Florida said she had been waiting at least a month just to get a DNA appointment, according to testimony submitted to the court.
Another mother waited three weeks for results. But by the time those came through in April, the Trump administration had introduced a new rule that required her to provide pay stubs she doesn’t have. She filed bank statements instead. Her children were released 10 weeks after her application was submitted, according to court documents filed Tuesday.
Many parents living in the U.S. without work authorization do not have income documents or U.S. identification documents, such as visas or driver’s licenses.
The siblings being held at the Poughkeepsie shelter are in that conundrum, said Darker, the New York immigration lawyer. They crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in March with their 25-year-old sister and her children, who were quickly deported.
Their mother said she moved to New Jersey a few years ago to earn money to support them. She couldn’t meet the new income reporting requirements. Their father, also from the Dominican Republic, lives in Boston and agreed to take them. But the DNA testing process has taken weeks. The AP could not reach him for comment.
She said her children are downcast and now simply want to return to the Dominican Republic.
“My children are going to return because they can’t take it anymore,” the mother said in Spanish. She noted that her children will have been in the shelter three months on Sunday.
Attanasio and Seitz write for the Associated Press.
Swathes of Brits have been stung by a post-Brexit passport rule that has sparked mass confusion – and resulted in passengers being denied boarding, despite having documentation that is still ‘in date’
Brits are still being caught out by the 2018 shakeup(Image: Getty Images)
Brits jetting off across Europe this summer risk being turned away at the gate – even if their passport is still ‘in-date’. Swathes of disgruntled passengers are still being caught out by a sneaky post-Brexit rule that could completely sabotage your next holiday. Even with soaring prices, it might be worth renewing your passport now – rather than risk being denied to fly at the airport.
According to reports, around half a dozen Brits were being turned away every single day at one UK airport due to the way the passport rules – which many feel are extremely unclear – were being applied. So, here’s everything you need to know about travelling across Europe this summer, and when you should renew your passport.
Make sure your passport meets strict Schengen rules(Image: Getty Images)
“If you are a national from a country outside the EU wishing to visit or travel within the EU, you will need a valid passport and possibly a visa,” explains the European Union. “Your passport should be valid for at least 3 months after the date you intend to leave the EU and it must have been issued within the last 10 years.”
To clarify, this means your passport must have been issued within the previous 10 years on the day that you enter an EU country. It must also be valid until the end of your stay, plus an additional three months.
However, one British artist was denied boarding by Norwegian airlines on March 23 as her passport was issued ‘more than nine years and nine months ago’. Her passport’s date of issue was June 13, 2015 – and it is due to expire in August – meaning she meets both criteria laid out by the EU.
“Upon arriving at check-in, the automated system directed me to the desk,” she said. “The staff member consulted a colleague, who stated my passport was invalid because it was issued more than nine years and nine months ago. But there is no such rule. This decision demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the actual entry requirements.”
The anonymous artist claims she lost around £700, and had to spend hundreds of pounds on an emergency passport renewal and replacement flight. According to the Guardian, The Copenhagen police department stood by its decision – and confirmed that once a passport is nine years and nine months old from the date of issue – it is invalid – as the Schengen does not recognise ‘extensions of 10-year-passports’.
Prior to October 2018, Brits renewing their passports could add up to nine extra months from their previous passport on to the expiry date. But post-Brexit, and EU countries are refusing to accept passports that have been issued more than 10 years ago altogether.
How much is a new passport?
Passport fees increased last month (April, 10) meaning a standard online application made from within the UK rose from £88.50 to £94.50 for adults and £57.50 to £61.50 for children. Postal applications also increased from £100 to £107 for adults and £69 to £74 for children.
According to GOV UK, the fee for a Premium Service (one day) application made from within in the UK is now £222 for adults and £189 for children, while overseas standard paper applications increased from £112.50 to £120.50 for adults and £77 to £82.50 for children.
“The new fees will help the Home Office to continue to move towards a system that meets its costs through those who use it, reducing reliance on funding from general taxation.,” the government added. “The government does not make any profit from the cost of passport applications.”
Have you been stung by the passport change? Email [email protected] for a chance to share your story
Migrants surrender to the U.S. Border Patrol after crossing the border wall from Mexico near Campo, California, about 50 miles from San Diego, in 2024. File photo by Pat Benic/UPI | License Photo
May 25 (UPI) — Federal officials are considering removing undocumented immigrants in California custody as an attempt to undermine the state’s sanctuary law.
“Operation Guardian Angel” is intended to “neutralize” sanctuary state rules, U.S. Atty. Bill Essaylie, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles explained.
The program employs federal resources at county jails and state prisons — the places where federal officials say the sanctuary law impedes the work of immigration agents to take custody.
“These laws effectively render federal immigration detainers meaningless,” Essaylie said. “While California may be presently disregarding detainers, it cannot ignore federal arrest warrants.”
An immigration detainer allows local law enforcement agencies to detain people for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release to allow for a transfer to federal custody.
Despite federal efforts to weaken the sanctuary law, local officials have said they will continue to enforce it and protect immigrants whom “Operation Guardian Angel” targets.
“This is just another scare tactic to get us to follow this authoritarian agenda, but it’s not going to work,” Los Angeles City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez said.
Essaylie’s office identifies people with criminal records who have been deported and charges them with a federal crime if they re-enter the United States.
California officials have said they already cooperate with federal agents with regards to undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday that police do not have a broad authority to enter a home to check on someone who may be suicidal and then search and seize evidence that may be used against the person.
In a 9-0 decision, the justices rejected what some courts called a “community caretaking” rule that might authorize police to enter a home even if they had no evidence of a crime or an emergency.
The case before the court began when the wife of a Rhode Island man called police because she was worried about her husband. They had argued the night before, and he possessed a handgun. Officers found the man, Edward Caniglia, sitting on his front porch. He denied that he was suicidal, but the officers called an ambulance and insisted he go to a hospital for an evaluation. He agreed but told them they could not enter his home and take his guns.
After he left, they did just that and confiscated two handguns.
The homeowner sued, alleging a violation of the 4th Amendment, which forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures” and usually requires officers to have a search warrant before going into a residence without the owner’s permission. But the 1st Circuit Court in Boston rejected his claim and said the police were acting to protect the safety and welfare of the homeowner.
The Supreme Court took up his appeal and overturned the lower court’s ruling in a short opinion in Caniglia vs. Strom.
“The 1st Circuit’s community caretaking rule goes beyond anything this court has recognized” under the 4th Amendment, said Justice Clarence Thomas. The police “lacked a warrant or consent” to enter the home, and they were not “reacting to a crime.” Nor was there an emergency that required officers to enter immediately, he added.
In the past, the court had upheld an officer’s search of a car in a similar situation. But “what is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Thomas wrote.
Several justices wrote separately to say the decision on Monday was narrow. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said “police officers may enter a home without a warrant in circumstances where they are reasonably trying to prevent a potential suicide or to help an elderly person who has been out of contact and may have fallen and suffered a serious injury.”
Washington lawyer Shay Dvoretsky, who represented the homeowner, called Monday’s decision “a significant victory for Americans concerned about the sanctity of their homes. The Supreme Court reaffirmed bedrock 4th Amendment principles and held that police do not have an open-ended license to perform community caretaking tasks in the home.”
Meanwhile, the court limited the reach of last year’s ruling that rejected non-unanimous jury verdicts in serious criminal cases. The justices said then that the Constitution as originally understood meant a jury must be unanimous to find someone guilty.
Only two states — Louisiana and Oregon — had permitted guilty verdicts based on a 10-2 or 11-1 vote, and both had agreed to end the practice.
In Edwards vs. Vannoy, the court said it would not apply the new rule retroactively to old cases. Thedrick Edwards was convicted on multiple counts of robbery, kidnapping and rape in 2006 and sentenced to life in prison, but the jury verdicts were not unanimous.
The justices split along ideological lines on whether he could obtain a new trial. The court’s conservatives insisted the justices had said in the past they would not apply new decisions to old cases. But the court’s liberals said an exception existed for “watershed” rulings and that last year’s ruling met that standard.
In 1989, the court left open the possibility that it might extend new rules to past cases if they involved an issue of “fundamental” fairness. Since then, however, the justices have never agreed that a new rule is so “fundamental” as to be such a “watershed” decision.
The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate defied congressional norms and voted Wednesday to revoke California’s progressive vehicle emission standards that would’ve effectively banned the sale of new gasoline-only cars by 2035.
In a 51-44 vote, the Senate overturned a Biden-era waiver that enabled California and a contingent of Democratic-led states to enforce zero-emission requirements for the sale of new passenger vehicles. After several hours of debate and testimony, legislators struck down a landmark regulation that aimed to drastically accelerate electric vehicle sales in California and nearly a dozen other states that chose to follow its lead, substantially reducing air pollution and planet-warming carbon emissions from tailpipes.
The Advanced Clean Cars II rule, enacted in 2022 by the California Air Resources Board and granted a federal waiver by the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency in December 2024, required car manufacturers to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission or plug-in hybrid vehicles to California dealerships over the next decade. Starting next year, the rule would have mandated that 35% of all new vehicles supplied to California dealerships be zero-emission vehicles or plug-in hybrids. By 2035, it would’ve prohibited the sale of new, gas-only cars statewide.
By invalidating the rule, Republican senators stamped out one of California’s most ambitious environmental policies and, more broadly, challenged the state’s authority to enact vehicle standards to combat its notoriously unhealthy air quality. If the measure is signed into law by President Trump and survives impending legal challenges, the vote would serve as a coup de grace to the state’s decades-long efforts to comply with federal smog standards in Southern California and meet California’s own ambitious climate goals.
The zero-emission requirements were expected to eliminate nearly 70,000 tons of smog-forming emissions and 4,500 tons of soot statewide by 2040, preventing more than 1,200 premature deaths and providing $13 billion in public health benefits, according to the California Air Resources Board. It also was expected to prevent the release of 395 million metric tons of carbon emissions — roughly the amount released by 100 coal plants in a year.
Ahead of the vote, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) warned that nullifying this rule and stripping California’s regulatory power would have serious health effects across the state.
“We are sowing poison seeds for the future,” Schiff said. “Seeds that will grow to be more asthma and more sickness and more hospitalization and more death. That is the bleak but blatant reality of what we are debating here today.”
Republicans, however, argued that California’s zero-emission requirements threatened to cripple the American auto industry and significantly limit the options for car buyers. In the coming days, Republicans plan to undo additional California clean-air rules that require the state’s heavy-duty truck fleet to adopt cleaner engines and a growing percentage of zero-emission vehicles.
“Democrats have this delusional dream of eliminating gas-powered vehicles in America,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said Tuesday from a lectern on the floor of the U.S. Capitol. “They want to force-feed electric vehicles to every man and woman who drives in this country. Well, Republicans are ready to use the Congressional Review Act to end this Democrat electric vehicle fantasy.”
Republicans moved ahead with the vote despite the warnings from the Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian that the waivers could not be overturned with the Congressional Review Act — a law that was meant to allow legislators to inspect and potentially block federal rules adopted in the waning days of a previous presidential administration.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, said the vote was a flagrant abuse of the Congressional Review Act. He threatened to block or delay the confirmation process for four Trump nominees to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency if Senate Republicans voted to overturn California’s vehicle emission standards.
“It appears that Republicans want to overturn half a century of precedent in order to undermine California’s ability to protect the health of our residents by using the Congressional Review Act to revoke California’s waivers that allow us to set our own vehicle emission standards,” Padilla said. “Republicans seem to be putting the wealth of the big oil industry over the health of our constituents.”
Environmental advocates, many of whom had spent years supporting California’s emissions standards, expressed their disappointment in the vote.
“This is a major blow to the decades-long public health protections delivered under the Clean Air Act,” said Will Barrett, senior director of nationwide clean air advocacy for the American Lung Assn. “It is more important than ever that California and all other states that rely on Clean Air Act waivers continue to cut tailpipe pollution through homegrown, health-protective policies.”
Because of its historically poor air quality, California has been an innovator in clean car policy, enacting the nation’s first tailpipe emissions standards in 1966. California was later granted the special authority to adopt vehicle emission standards that are more strict than the federal government’s under the Clean Air Act. But the state must seek a federal waiver from the U.S. EPA for any specific rule to be enforceable.
In the five decades since then, the state has enacted dozens of rules to reduce air pollution and planet-warming greenhouse gases. Padilla stressed that these rules were largely meant to alleviate lung-aggravating smog, which was a persistent threat where he grew up in Los Angeles.
“On a pretty regular basis, we would be sent home from grade school because of the intensity and dangers of smog that settled over the San Fernando Valley,” Padilla said. “That’s the case for far too many Californians, still to this day. But it’s the reason why, decades ago, Congress recognized both California’s unique air quality challenges and its technical ingenuity, and granted California special authority to do something about it.”
Due to its enormous economy and population, automakers have conformed to California’s rules. In addition, many Democrat-led states have chosen to adhere to California’s auto emissions rules, applying more pressure on car companies first to make cleaner engines and later to manufacture more electric vehicles.
California leads the nation in zero-emission vehicle sales. In 2023 and 2024, about 25% of new cars sold in California were zero-emission or plug-in hybrids, according to the California Energy Commission. This year, the share of zero-emission vehicle sales has slightly slumped, making up only 23% of light-duty vehicle sales.
But the Advanced Clean Cars II rule would require a jump in zero-emission sales next year, with at least 35% of vehicles supplied to car dealer lots to be zero-emission or plug-in hybrids.
Mike Stanton, president of the National Automobile Dealers Assn., contended that consumer demand for electric vehicles falls far below California’s requirements, in part, because of unreliable charging infrastructure.
“Banning gas and hybrid cars is a national issue that should be decided by Congress, not an unelected state agency,” Stanton wrote in a letter to senators, referring to the California Air Resources Board.
In February, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin brought the Biden-era waivers to Congress, suggesting that they were federal rules that had not been reviewed. However, none of California’s waivers for the state’s vehicle emission standards had been brought before Congress for review, because they were largely regarded as administrative orders.
The House of Representatives voted this month to advance the resolution to the Senate. Thirty-five Democratic lawmakers, including California Reps. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce) and Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), joined with the Republican majority.
In the Senate, the 51-44 vote was split along party lines.
Experts say the Senate vote could have lasting implications for congressional procedures.
To topple California auto emission standards, Senate Republicans controversially invoked the Congressional Review Act, a 1996 law that allows an incoming Congress to rescind major federal rules approved near the end of a previous presidential administration. This process notably allows federal legislators to bypass a filibuster and requires only a simple majority to repeal federal rules rather than the typical 60 votes.
However, the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan government watchdog, said federal waivers for California emission standards were not subject to the Congressional Review Act, because the federal waiver is technically not a rule; it’s an order. The Senate Parliamentarian, a non-partisan advisor to the congressional body, upheld that interpretation, ruling that the Senate couldn’t use the Congressional Review Act to repeal California’s waivers.
The Senate vote proceeded in defiance of the parliamentarian’s ruling, marking a stunning rebuke of congressional norms.
The decision by Republican senators amounted to a “nuclear option” that would set a dangerous precedent, Padilla said.
“The old adage says, ‘What goes around comes around,’” he said. “It won’t be long before Democrats are once again in the driver’s seat, in the majority once again. And when that happens, all bets would be off.”
ITV presenter and financial expert Martin Lewis illuminated three important checks that Brits should make ahead of the holiday season
Different countries have varying rules concerning passport expiry dates(Image: Getty Images)
Martin Lewis has urged Brits to make three crucial checks if they plan to holiday abroad this summer. The financial specialist, 53, said it all comes down to the dates on your passport and ensuring you have the right documents before heading off.
Speaking on an episode of ITV’s Martin Lewis Money Show, he said: “Now, I need to say something very important to everybody. Border control and flight checks are getting more stringent.
“There is an immigration issue going on around the world, and that means countries are getting stricter on who they let in. So, you need to be more diligent with your checks.”
First and foremost, Martin advised travellers to check the expiry dates on passports. If you have less than six months left, this could pose a big problem.
For various countries, including Australia, China, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates, your passport must be valid for at least six months from your entry date. Tourists in European and Schengen countries must also have a passport valid for at least three months after their planned return date.
However, even if your passport is valid for seven months or longer, you may still be denied entry if you do not meet another essential rule. For many nations, including European countries, a passport must have been issued less than 10 years before the holiday departure date.
Brits are advised to check the expiry dates of their passports before heading to the airport(Image: Getty Images)
Martin continued: “If your passport is over 10 years old, many countries won’t let you in. Now, how can it be over 10 years old? Because it used to be that when you renewed, if you had any spare time on your old passport, they could add that on top.
“So, you might have… 10 years, 10 months, and that can bar you too. So, you need to do both of those checks. Now, if you have done those checks, if there is a ‘yes’ to either of those, then the safest thing is to renew before you go.”
The most affordable way to obtain a passport is online through the Government’s website, costing £12.50 less than postal applications. Typically, the passport arrives in three weeks, although it may take longer if additional information or an interview is required.
In emergencies, travellers also have the option to apply for an urgent passport using the Government’s one-day premium service or one-week fast track scheme. Both schemes are subject to different criteria and cost more than the standard service.
In light of these rules, Martin continued: “If I was seven, eight or nine months away and the rule was six months, I’d probably play safe and get a new passport first anyway, so that I’ve got more on it, because it’s been so tricky.
“And it’s very similar if you are travelling to the USA or passing through the USA, you need to sort your ESTA now. There is heightened border security in the States. If you don’t have, this is your sort of online visa if you like, without one people are being denied entry. You need to be careful.”
Getting a passport usually takes three weeks, though it can take longer if extra information is needed(Image: Getty Images/iStockphoto)
How can I get a passport urgently?
Option 1: One-day premium
The one-day premium option is for adults renewing an existing passport. Online applicants pay £222 or £235 for a 54-page frequent traveller passport. Following each application, an appointment will be scheduled, with the earliest booking available two days later.
The Government explains: “You’ll need to hand in your old passport at your appointment. Your new passport will be ready to collect from the passport office four hours after your appointment.”
Option 2: One-week fast track
This alternative option is also available for anyone looking to renew their passport, as well as in these specific circumstances:
You need to get a child’s passport
You need to replace a lost, stolen or damaged passport
You need to change the personal details on a passport (your name, place of birth or gender)
The fast track option is more economical, priced at £178 for an adult passport (£191 for a 54-page frequent traveller passport) and £145 for a child passport (or £158 for a 54-page frequent traveller passport). You can schedule an appointment as soon as the day after you submit your application. Typically, the passport arrives about a week later.
Importantly, you are ineligible to apply for either service if you are outside the UK or applying for your first adult passport. The Government also adds: “If you’ve already applied for a passport and have not received it yet, do not pay for an urgent passport.
“You will not get your passport sooner and you will be charged a £32 admin fee for each additional application.”
WASHINGTON — How can Congress cut Medicaid without explicitly cutting Medicaid?
That has been a years-long dilemma facing fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party who have sought cuts to the country’s deficit-driving social safety net programs, including Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare, without generating political fallout from the tens of millions of Americans who will suffer the consequences.
Now, GOP lawmakers have settled on a strategy, outlined in legislation expected to pass the House in the coming days amid ongoing negotiations over the package that President Trump is calling his “Big Beautiful Bill.”
Rather than lowering the income eligibility limit for coverage — an old policy proposal that would cut off Americans at the higher end of the eligibility range — Trump’s bill will instead require applicants to provide proof of their work hours and apply for specific exceptions, creating new barriers for individuals to maintain insurance.
House passage of the bill is far from assured, and the Senate will still have its say. But if it does become law, the policy would affect more than 71 million of the poorest Americans, more of whom live in California than any other state.
Newsletter
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know in 2024. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
Barriers to entry are the point
If everyone eligible under the new work requirements were to apply for and receive Medicaid coverage, the cost savings to the government would be minimal. But the barriers themselves are the point, making it more likely that people with a right to Medicaid won’t ultimately receive it, experts said.
“If you want to make a substantial cut to the program, how do you do that in a systematic way?” said Matt Bruenig, founder of People’s Policy Project and a former lawyer at the National Labor Relations Board.
“With the work requirements, the number of people who seem to be actually ineligible because of it is quite small — so if it actually is perfectly administrated, you’re not going to see a whole lot of savings,” Bruenig said. “But if it’s not well administrated and it creates all these problems, then you could see significant savings.”
Existing government programs, such as Social Security, unemployment and supplemental nutrition assistance for women, infants and children, determine eligibility for those benefits based on an individual’s income. But creating a new set of criteria for Medicaid based on hours worked will require a new reporting system that is not outlined in the bill.
“We have all these systems that are based around making sure people have the earnings that they can report to all these agencies, but you don’t really report hours in any context,” Bruenig added. “Monthly hours — that’s just not a thing. And it’s not clear how that’s going to work, at all.”
Who counts as ‘waste, fraud and abuse’?
Trump and members of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of Republican fiscal hawks, have argued for a strict hourly work requirement to eliminate “waste, fraud and abuse” in Medicaid by cutting off unproductive individuals from government benefits.
But exemptions suggested in the draft legislation — parents caring for young children or elderly parents, individuals dealing with health issues, those between jobs — reflect the range of reasons why Medicaid recipients may fall below the proposed hourly requirement. And each time an exception arises, individuals will have to refile, increasing the likelihood they will simply let their coverage lapse.
It also will force working individuals who would otherwise be eligible — such as Americans working gig jobs for DoorDash or Uber, for example — to account for hours worked transiting between jobs that don’t generate receipts.
“They just are not finding very much at all,” said John Schmitt, a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, when asked whether ineligible individuals are routinely receiving Medicaid.
“The real problems are not with individuals taking advantage of Medicaid,” Schmitt added. “It is with healthcare providers taking advantage of Medicaid, in the sense of the way they bill and provide services to people. And that is not going to be changed in any way, whatsoever, by imposing a work requirement.”
The Congressional Budget Office said it is these Medicaid recipients who will either fall behind or grow fed up with the paperwork, resulting in 7.6 million losing coverage under the plan and saving the federal government roughly $800 billion.
California will be hit hardest
The effects of Medicaid cuts will be felt nationwide, but most pointedly in states that expanded Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act. On that score, Democratic states such as California lead the way.
A state assessment published Sunday found the GOP bill would “cause serious harm to California’s health care system,” possibly resulting in up to 3.4 million residents losing coverage.
No state has more workers on Medicaid than California, where 18% of its workforce receives benefits from the program, according to a study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
“Millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “We must sound the alarm because the stakes couldn’t be higher.”
But the political stakes are high for Republicans as well.
Stephen K. Bannon, a former campaign aide and White House strategist to Trump, warned in recent days that the party has “gotta be careful” with Medicaid, given its widespread use among low-income GOP voters.
“A lot of MAGAs are on Medicaid, I’m telling you,” Bannon said on his podcast. “If you don’t think so, you are dead wrong.”
Trump, for his part, seems of two minds on the matter. Cuts to Medicaid, as well as to food stamp programs and green energy tax benefits, will be required to get the bill passed with support from the Freedom Caucus, which says the renewal of tax cuts initially passed in the first Trump administration must be offset with savings elsewhere.
“Here’s what I want on Medicaid: We’re not touching anything,” Trump said Tuesday, taking questions from reporters on Capitol Hill. “All I want is one thing. Three words. We don’t want any waste, fraud or abuse. Very simple — waste, fraud, abuse.”
But in a private meeting with GOP lawmakers, his guidance was sharper. “Don’t f— around with Medicaid,” the president reportedly said.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Trump vs. CASA Inc. Though the case arises out of President Trump’s January executive order on birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment, Thursday’s oral argument had very little to do with whether everyone born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen. Instead, the argument mostly focused on a procedural legal issue that is just as important: whether lower-court federal judges possess the legitimate power to issue nationwide injunctions to bring laws or executive orders to a halt beyond their districts.
There is a very straightforward answer to this question: No, they don’t. And it is imperative for American constitutionalism and republican sef-governance that the justices clearly affirm that.
Let’s start with the text. Article III of the Constitution establishes the “judicial Power” of the United States, which University of Chicago Law School professor Will Baude argued in a 2008 law review article “is the power to issue binding judgments and to settle legal disputes within the court’s jurisdiction.” If the federal courts can bind certain parties, the crucial question is: Who is bound by a federal court issuing an injunction?
In our system of governance, it is only the named parties to a given lawsuit that can truly be bound by a lower court’s judgment. As the brilliant then-Stanford Law School professor Jonathan Mitchell put it in an influential 2018 law review article, an “injunction is nothing more than a judicially imposed non-enforcement policy” that “forbids the named defendants to enforce the statute” — or executive order — “while the court’s order remains in place.” Fundamentally, as Samuel L. Bray observed in another significant 2017 law review article, a federal court’s injunction binds only “the defendant’s conduct … with respect to the plaintiff.” If other courts in other districts face a similar case, those judges might consider their peer’s decision and follow it, but they are not strictly required to do so. (For truly nationwide legal issues, the proper recourse is filing a class-action lawsuit, as authorized by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.)
One need not be a legal scholar to understand this commonsense point.
Americans are a self-governing people; it is we the people, according to the Constitution’s Preamble, who are sovereign in the United States. And while the judiciary serves as an important check on congressional or executive overreach in specific cases or controversies that come before it (as Article III puts it), there is no broader ability for lower-court judges to decide the law of the land by striking down a law or order for all of the American people.
As President Lincoln warned in his first inaugural address: “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by” the judiciary, “the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”
Simply put, the patriots of 1776 did not rebel against the tyranny of King George III only to subject themselves, many generations later, to the black-robed tyranny of today. They fought for the ability to live freely and self-govern, and to thereby control their own fates and destinies. Judicial supremacy and the concomitant misguided practice of nationwide injunctions necessarily deprive a free people of the ability to do exactly that.
It is true that Chief Justice John Marshall’s landmark 1803 ruling in Marbury vs. Madison established that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” But it is also true, as Marshall noted in the less frequently quoted sentence directly following that assertion: “Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.” Note the all-important qualifier of “apply the rule to particular cases.” Marbury is often erroneously invoked to support judicial supremacy, but the modest case- and litigant-specific judicial review that Marshall established has nothing to do with the modern judicial supremacy and nationwide injunctions that proliferate today. It is that fallacious conception of judicial supremacy that was argued Thursday at the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., one of the swing votes in CASA, is not always known for judicial modesty. On the contrary, in clumsily attempting to defend his institution’s integrity, he has at times indulged in unvarnished judicial supremacist rhetoric and presided over an unjustifiable arrogation of power to what Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 78, referred to as the “least dangerous” of the three branches.
If Roberts and his fellow centrist justices — namely, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — have any sense of prudence, they must join their more stalwart originalist colleagues in holding that nationwide injunctions offend the very core of our constitutional order. Such a ruling would not merely be a win for Trump; it would be a win for the Constitution and for self-governance itself.
Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that lower-court judges lack constitutional authority to issue nationwide injunctions, emphasizing that such injunctions exceed the judiciary’s role as defined by Article III. It asserts that injunctions should bind only named parties in a lawsuit, not the entire population, to preserve self-governance[1][2][3].
Citing legal scholars like Will Baude and Jonathan Mitchell, the author contends that nationwide injunctions distort the judicial process by allowing plaintiffs to “venue shop” for favorable rulings, effectively enabling a single judge to dictate policy for all Americans. This undermines the principle that courts resolve disputes between specific parties, not set broad legal precedent[1][2][3].
The piece invokes historical precedents, including President Lincoln’s warnings about judicial overreach and Chief Justice Marshall’s Marbury v. Madison, to argue that judicial review should apply narrowly to individual cases. It frames nationwide injunctions as a modern departure from the Founders’ vision of a limited judiciary[1][3].
Different views on the topic
During oral arguments, New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum argued that nationwide injunctions should remain permissible in specific circumstances, such as cases involving constitutional rights or systemic federal policies, to prevent inconsistent enforcement across jurisdictions[3].
Advocates for retaining injunctions highlight their role in checking executive overreach, particularly in high-stakes cases like challenges to Trump’s birthright citizenship order. They argue that without this tool, harmful policies could remain in effect for years while litigation proceeds in multiple courts[4][3].
Legal scholars and some justices have raised concerns that banning nationwide injunctions entirely could create regulatory chaos, citing examples like the FTC’s non-compete ban and environmental rules, where injunctions provided temporary uniformity while courts resolve conflicting rulings[3][4].
GEORGE RUSSELL “won’t be saying thank you” anytime soon after blasting Formula One’s swearing rules as too “ridiculous” in the first place.
The Mercedes star, who sits fourth in the Championship standings, showed no gratitude to F1‘s governing body after labelling the walk-back on rules as “suspect” ahead of the Emilia-Romagna Grand Prix.
2
George Russell has criticised the FIA’s stance on swearing and criticising officialsCredit: Getty
2
FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem dramatically reduced the fines after receiving backlashCredit: AFP
On Wednesday, the FIA climbed down on its previous stance of drivers facing potential bans and point deductions for swearing or criticising officials, and dramatically reduced the possible fines that can be issued.
Crucially, the stewards are now able to differentiate between ‘controlled’ and ‘non-controlled’ environments, meaning drivers are highly unlikely to be punished for swearing while competing, but will still face action for using offensive language in press conferences.
But Russell, was unmoved by FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem cutting the first time fines from £33,700 down to £4,200.
The 27-year-old said: “I didn’t really have any reaction to the announcement because it was so ridiculous in the first place that we are just basically reverting on that.
“At the end of the day we’re not going to be saying thank you for something that was so crazy in the first place.
“We’ve just gone back to something that is slightly more in the name of common sense
“But we should never have moved away from that in the first place. You know, we shouldn’t even be having this conversation.”
Russell, a director of the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association, also revealed that he “wonders if the change was strategic timing” given that Ben Sulayem is up for re-election at the end of the season.
Ben Sulayem said when the rule change was announced that he had “led an extensive and collaborative review with contributions from across the seven FIA World Championships”.
But, Russell has refused that claim, saying: “We’ve still had no correspondence with anyone from the senior level at the FIA. So yeah, it’s all a bit suspect.”
Lewis Hamilton fumes ‘have a tea break while you’re at it’ at Ferrari staff and refuses to apologise in Miami GP bust-up
The seven-time champion said: “It seems a bit of a mess there at the moment. There are lots of changes that are needed, for sure.”
Red Bull‘s Max Verstappen – who last year was the first driver to be punished for saying his car was “f***ed” with a form of community service – said the change was “a bit better and it’s a start”.
Incredibly, Russell and Verstappen both backed the potential bid of Carlos Sainz Sr, the father of Williams driver Sainz, in this December’s FIA presidential election.
When asked if Sainz would be a better president, the world champion Red Bull star bluntly replied: “You can fill that in yourself.
“He’s very well respected in the world here and in the rally world as a former rally driver.
“Of course people always say it’s conflicting with his son but I think he’s professional enough to keep that separated from each other.
“I think it would be a great addition to run for president.”
Russell also dismissed the idea there could be a conflict of interest because of Sainz’s son, who is also a GPDA director.
The Brit said: “You’re so far removed from a technical standpoint. It’s down to the technical people within the FIA to be the rule makers.
“The president in years gone by has probably been far less involved than what we’ve seen recently and far less visible.”
F1 2025
THE new Formula One season is well underway – and one team appear to be running away with it.
A massive summer of change saw Lewis Hamilton move on from Mercedes and join Ferrari, while the McLaren pair of Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri have a big chance to end Max Verstappen‘s recent dominance.
The Red Bull ace is aiming for a record-equalling FIFTH consecutive world title.
Rose had been exiled from the sport since 1989, after he was found by then-commissioner Bart Giamatti (yes, the father of actor Paul Giamatti) to have been betting on his team’s games while he was manager of the Cincinnati Reds. Rose died Sept. 30, 2024, at age 83.
Rose’s daughter, Fawn Rose, filed a petition for reinstatement Jan. 8 and met with current MLB commissioner Rob Manfred. In February, President Trump advocated for the lifetime ban to be lifted in a social media post, then met with Manfred in April to discuss the matter.
Jeffrey Lenkov, a Los Angeles lawyer who represented Rose at the time of his death and prepared the petition pro bono, told The Times the decision was the result of several years of working with Manfred and his executive team.
“The Rose family and I are extremely overjoyed at the wisdom, courage and compassion exhibited by the commissioner,” Lenkov said. “The reinstatement in and of itself is a historic moment because many people, including Pete at times, thought the ban would never be lifted.
“Getting into the Hall of Fame on his merits is an opportunity he wanted and should be able to receive now.”
Cincinnati Reds player-manager Pete Rose hits a line drive single to break Ty Cobb’s all-time hits record in 1985.
(Associated Press)
From his 24-year career that resulted in more MLB hits — 4,256 — than any other player in history to his lifetime ban, Rose’s saga was as complex and sad as it was triumphant. Pete Rose Night will take place Wednesday at Great American Ball Park in Cincinnati, and the decision to lift the ban undoubtedly will elevate the mood.
Here is a look at key elements of his rise, fall and potential inclusion in the Hall of Fame.
Will Rose immediately be inducted into the Hall of Fame?
No. Barring an unforeseen exception, a three-year waiting period will apply before Rose can be put on the ballot because the committee that could vote him in doesn’t convene until December 2027 to consider candidates for induction in the summer of 2028.
Rose remains ineligible to be voted in by the Baseball Writers Assn. of America because its ballot includes only candidates whose playing careers ended no more than 15 years prior to the election. Players are eligible to be voted into the Hall of Fame by the baseball writers five years after they retire. However in 1991, two years after Rose was banned from baseball and months before he was set to make the ballot, the Hall’s board of directors passed a rule prohibiting anybody on the ineligible list from being a candidate for induction.
Now that he is eligible, his case will be reviewed by the 16-member Classic Baseball Era Committee that evaluates players who made their greatest impact before 1980. Rose would qualify for consideration because his 24-year career began in 1963.
The committee voted in Dick Allen and Dave Parker this year. When it convenes again to vote for 2028 induction, Rose would need an aye from a 75% majority — 12 of the 16 members.
What did Rose do to deserve a lifetime ban?
Since before the 1919 Black Sox Scandal resulted in Shoeless Joe Jackson and other players being banned for life for taking money from gamblers and throwing games, Major League Baseball has had a rule against gambling to protect the integrity of the game. Rule 21(d) is posted in every clubhouse and states: “Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.”
Rose bet on the Cincinnati Reds when he was the team’s player-manager in 1985 and ‘86, and the manager in ’87. An MLB investigation headed by lawyer John Dowd resulted in a 225-page report released in 1989 that named men that Rose allegedly placed bets with and cited evidence that Rose bet on Reds games.
Cincinnati Reds manager Pete Rose before a spring-training game March 22, 1989, after the Commissioner’s Office investigation into his gambling was released.
(John Swart / Associated Press)
After denying for nearly 15 years that he bet on baseball, Rose admitted it in his 2004 book, “My Prison Without Bars,” written with Rick Hill. Later, he would sign and sell baseballs with the inscription, “Sorry I bet on baseball.” The balls currently go for $200 to $400 apiece online.
Born and raised in Cincinnati, Rose began gambling as a youngster when his dad took him to a local racetrack. By the time he reached the big leagues, he bet on college and pro basketball and pro football in addition to the horses.
“On Feb. 5, 1986, I wrote three checks for eight grand each to cover my losses on the NFL playoffs,” Rose wrote. “The NFL turned into March Madness, which turned into the NBA playoffs, which always turned into the skids.
“I always lived by one hard and fast rule: You don’t bet on baseball. But for the first time in my life, I was no longer playing baseball, just managing. A part of me was still looking for ways to recapture the high I got from winning batting titles and World Series. If I couldn’t get the high from playing baseball, then I needed a substitute.
“I can’t honestly remember the first time I bet on baseball. But I remember the first time I spoke openly about it. I was sitting in my living room, watching the 1986 playoffs between the Mets and the Astros. I had a group of friends over for the game. Without even thinking of the consequences, I said, ‘Betting on the playoffs makes the games more exciting to watch.’ ”
Rose’s immense popularity in his hometown began to erode when the Dowd Report was made public on June 27, 1989.
“Forever and ever and ever, the people here have been solidly behind Pete,” Marty Brennaman, longtime broadcaster for the Reds, told The Times’ Bill Plaschke. “This is the most provincial city I’ve lived in. I can’t imagine a more provincial city.
“But now, there is a segment of the population where, if they haven’t completely gone the other way against Pete, there is at least an element of doubt in their minds. People are becoming divided.”
Longtime Cincinnati historian Dan Hurley insisted the public reaction was even harsher.
“I think the reaction finally is, ‘Hey, they got him,’ ” Hurley said of Rose. “And for us, that’s not very pleasant.”
Rose does have his supporters within baseball. Terry Francona, his former teammate who is in his first season as Reds manager, recently said, “If he’s not in the Hall of Fame, there isn’t one.”
Why the change of heart by MLB?
Pete Rose speaks at a news conference in Las Vegas after MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said he has no intention of altering Rose’s lifetime ban from baseball.
(Mark J. Terrill / Associated Press)
Rose first petitioned for reinstatement in 1997 when Bud Selig was commissioner. Selig didn’t meet with Rose until 2002 and did not rule on the issue before he retired in 2006. Manfred rejected a second petition by Rose in 2015, saying, “Mr. Rose has not presented credible evidence of a reconfigured life either by an honest acceptance by him of his wrongdoing, so clearly established by the Dowd Report, or by a rigorous, self-aware and sustained program of avoidance by him of the circumstances that led to his permanent eligibility in 1989.
“Absent such credible evidence, allowing him to work in the game presents an unacceptable risk of a future violation by him of Rule 21, and thus to the integrity of our sport. I, therefore, must reject Mr. Rose’s application for reinstatement.”
The fact that Rose died in September created an opportunity to revisit his status. If the permanently ineligible list exists to prevent a person who poses a threat to the integrity of the game from working in baseball, could that status change when the person is no longer living?
Roses adorn the statue of Pete Rose at Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati after the all-time hits leader died.
(Kareem Elgazzar / Associated Press)
That argument was made in the December petition by Rose’s family, and Manfred took it into consideration.
“The decision was very complex and it’s not easily said that it could have been done during his lifetime,” Lenkov said. “MLB had a lot of factors to work through. They had to be receptive to listening for a number of years on this issue, and they did.
“Pete in his lifetime felt he had done his time, paid the price. I believe he lived with a scarlet letter on him because of it. His punishment was substantial.”
The relationship between gambling and professional sports — including MLB — has evolved dramatically in recent years. Sports betting is legal in 40 states, and the American Gaming Assn. estimates that its total economic impact is $328 billion a year and revenue from it exceeded $115 billion in 2024.
Yet restrictions still apply, again to protect the integrity of the game. Can a baseball player, coach or umpire bet on March Madness brackets, the Super Bowl or participate in a fantasy football league? Yes. Can they bet on anything — baseball or otherwise — through illegal or offshore bookmakers? No.
What was President Trump’s role in the reinstatement?
Seemingly out of nowhere, the president injected himself into the conversation. Even before the family’s petition for reinstatement had become public, Trump posted a bombastic message on Truth Social on Feb. 28 that read:
“Major League Baseball didn’t have the courage or decency to put the late, great, Pete Rose, also known as ‘Charlie Hustle,’ into the Baseball Hall of fame. Now he is dead, will never experience the thrill of being selected, even though he was a FAR BETTER PLAYER than most of those who made it, and can only be named posthumously. WHAT A SHAME!
“Anyway, over the next few weeks I will be signing a complete PARDON of Pete Rose, who shouldn’t have been gambling on baseball, but only bet on HIS TEAM WINNING. He never betted against himself, or the other team. He had the most hits, by far, in baseball history, and won more games than anyone in sports history. Baseball, which is dying all over the place, should get off its fat, lazy ass, and elect Pete Rose, even though far too late, into the Baseball Hall of Fame!”
No evidence has surfaced of Rose betting on the Reds to lose. After confessing in his book that he bet on baseball, he emphasized that point.
“I bet on my own team to win,” Rose told NJ.com. “That’s what I did in a nutshell. I was wrong, but I didn’t taint the game. I bet on my team every night because that’s the confidence that I had in my players. And I was wrong.”
A pardon wasn’t necessary for Manfred to reinstate Rose, although in 1990 Rose served five months in prison after pleading guilty to tax evasion.
Trump met with Manfred at the White House on April 16, but neither man spoke publicly about what they discussed. MLB issued a statement that said, “President Trump is a longtime fan of baseball. As he has done in the past, Commissioner Manfred was pleased to visit the White House again to discuss issues pertaining to baseball with the president.”
What are Pete Rose’s Hall of Fame credentials?
Cincinnati Reds player-manager Pete Rose is congratulated by his teammates after he broke Ty Cobb’s hitting record in Cincinnati on Sept. 11, 1985.
(Associated Press)
Rose broke Ty Cobb’s career hits total of 4,189 in 1985 and finished with 4,256. That alone would be enough for entry into the Hall of Fame, but Rose also was named National League Rookie of the Year in 1963 and the NL Most Valuable Player in 1973. He won three batting titles and three World Series titles — two with the Reds in 1975 and ’76 and one with the Philadelphia Phillies in 1980.
Rose batted .303 with an on-base percentage of .375, earning the nickname Charlie Hustle because he sprinted to first base even on a walk. He led the NL in hits seven times, doubles five times, and in 1978 put together a 44-game hitting streak, second in baseball history to Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game streak.
Rose played in more games (3,562), had more plate appearances (15,890) and more at-bats (14,053) than any other player.
