I'm Muslim. Zohran Mamdani's victory is a Barack Obama moment.
When I found out about New York Democratic Assembly member Zohran Mamdani's upset victory in New York City's mayoral Democratic primary, an old memory popped into my head.
It was the day after Barack Obama trounced John McCain in 2008's presidential election. A friend of mine who was running his student chapter for the state of Georgia greeted me at the student center of the University of Georgia, where we both went to school.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
21 minutes ago
- Fox News
Justice Alito's warning about nationwide injunction 'loophole' looms over Trump cases
Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about a "potentially significant loophole" in the Supreme Court's decision to curb universal injunctions, and now his warning is hanging over lawsuits involving President Donald Trump. Alito said in his concurring opinion in Trump v. CASA that class action lawsuits and lawsuits brought by states leave room for judges to hand down injunctions that, in practice, would function the same way a universal injunction does. "Federal courts should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools," Alito said. Alito's warning comes as judges continue to hand down sweeping rulings and as plaintiffs begin filing lawsuits tailored to avoid running into the new roadblock established by the high court. In one major ruling, Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee based in Washington, D.C., found this week that Trump's proclamation declaring an "invasion" at the border was unlawful. Trump's proclamation restricted migrants from claiming asylum when crossing into the United States, a practice the Trump administration says has been abused by border crossers. Moss "set aside" that policy under the Administrative Procedure Act, which had an effect similar to that of a nationwide injunction. More than a dozen potential asylees brought the lawsuit, and Moss also agreed to certify the case as a class action lawsuit that applied to all potential asylees in the country. The Trump administration immediately appealed the ruling. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement that Moss was a "rogue district court judge" who was "already trying to circumvent the Supreme Court's recent ruling against nationwide injunctions." In his concurring opinion, Alito warned against class action lawsuits that do not strictly abide by Rule 23, which lays out the criteria for certifying a class. He said the Supreme Court's decision on universal injunctions will have "very little value" if district courts do not adhere to the rule. "District courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23," Alito wrote. "Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of 'nationwide class relief,' and today's decision will be of little more than minor academic interest." Alito also noted that another area for exploitation could be states that seek statewide relief from a court. For instance, Democrat-led states have filed several lawsuits challenging Trump's policies. A judge could grant those states statewide injunctions, meaning everyone living in the state would be exempt from the policies. Alito warned that giving third parties widespread standing in cases in that manner required careful scrutiny. If judges are lax about these statewide lawsuits, states will have "every incentive to bring third-party suits on behalf of their residents to obtain a broader scope of equitable relief than any individual resident could procure in his own suit," Alito wrote. "Left unchecked, the practice of reflexive state third-party standing will undermine today's decision as a practical matter."
CNN
21 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court agrees to review bans on transgender athletes joining teams that align with their gender identity
Source: CNN The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to decide whether states may ban transgender students from playing on sports teams that align with their gender identity, revisiting the issue of LGBTQ rights in a blockbuster case just days after upholding a ban on some health care for trans youth. The decision puts the issue of transgender rights on the Supreme Court's docket for the second year in a row and is by far the most significant matter the justices have agreed to hear in the term that will begin in October. The cases, one from West Virginia and the other from Idaho, involve transgender athletes who at least initially competed in track and field and cross country. The West Virginia case was filed by a then-middle school student who told the Supreme Court she was 'devastated at the prospect' of not being able to compete after the state passed a law banning trans women athletes' participation in public school sports. The court's decision landed as transgender advocates are still reeling from the 6-3 ruling in US v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's ban on trans youth from accessing puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Though the state law also bars surgeries, they were not at issue in the high court's case. But that decision was limited to questions of whether the state had the power to regulate medical treatments for minors, leaving unresolved challenges to other anti-trans laws. The justices agreed to review two cases challenging sports bans in Idaho and West Virginia. The court didn't act on a third appeal over a similar ban in Arizona and will likely hold that case until it decides the other two, probably by early next summer. The American Civil Liberties Union, which is part of the legal team representing the athletes in the cases, said school athletic programs should be accessible to everyone regardless of a student's sex or transgender status. 'Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth,' said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project. 'We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.' West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, a Republican, said that the state is 'confident the Supreme Court will uphold the Save Women's Sports Act because it complies with the US Constitution and complies with Title IX.' The Supreme Court will review the case at a time when Republican-led states and President Donald Trump have pushed for policies to curtail transgender rights. Trump ran for reelection in part on a campaign to push 'transgender insanity' out of public schools, mocking Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in advertising for supporting 'they/them,' the pronouns used by some transgender and nonbinary people. But even before that, states had passed laws banning transgender girls from playing on girls' sports teams. Roughly half of US states have enacted such laws. The Trump administration has actively supported policies that bar transgender athletes from competing on teams that match their gender identity. On Wednesday, the federal government released $175 million in previously frozen federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania after the school agreed to block transgender athletes from female sports teams and erase the records set by swimmer Lia Thomas. In West Virginia, former Gov. Jim Justice, a Republican, signed the 'Save Women's Sports Act' in 2021, banning transgender women and girls from participating on public school sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Becky Pepper-Jackson, a rising sixth grader at the time, who was 'looking forward to trying out for the girls' cross-country team,' filed a lawsuit alleging that the ban violated federal law and the Constitution. The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that West Virginia's ban violated Pepper-Jackson's rights under Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex at schools that receive federal aid. The court also revived her constitutional challenge of the law. 'Her family, teachers, and classmates have all known B.P.J. as a girl for several years, and – beginning in elementary school – she has participated only on girls athletic teams,' US Circuit Judge Toby Heytens, who was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden, wrote for the court. 'Given these facts, offering B.P.J. a 'choice' between not participating in sports and participating only on boys teams is no real choice at all.' Most of the appeals on the issue of transgender athletes question whether such bans are permitted under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The West Virginia case was different in that it also raised the question of whether such bans violated Title IX. The Supreme Court often prefers to settle a dispute under a law, rather than the Constitution, if it has the option because such a ruling technically allows Congress to change the law in response to the decision. West Virginia appealed to the Supreme Court last year, arguing that the appeal court decision 'renders sex-separated sports an illusion.' 'Schools will need to separate sports teams based on self-identification and personal choices that have nothing to do with athletic performance,' the state said. West Virginia initially brought the case to the Supreme Court last year on an emergency basis, seeking to enforce the law against Pepper-Jackson while the underlying legal challenge played out. In an unsigned order, the court declined that request. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted it. In Idaho, Republican Gov. Brad Little signed the state's sports ban in 2020, the first of its kind in the nation. Lindsay Hecox, then a freshman at Boise State University, sued days later, saying that she intended to try out for the women's track and cross-country teams and alleging that the law violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. A federal district court blocked the law's enforcement against Hecox months later and the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision last year. Idaho appealed to the Supreme Court in July. 'Idaho's women and girls deserve an equal playing field,' said Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a Republican. 'For too long, activists have worked to sideline women and girls in their own sports.' But Sasha Buchert, senior attorney and director of the Non-Binary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, stressed the importance of team sports for all students. Lambda Legal is part of the team representing Pepper-Jackson in the West Virginia case. 'Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,' said Buchert said. 'Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.' This story has been updated with additional information. See Full Web Article
CBS News
26 minutes ago
- CBS News
House passes "big, beautiful bill," sending it to Trump's desk in 218-214 vote
Washington — The House on Thursday passed the signature piece of legislation of President Trump's second term, approving a massive bill that includes trillions of dollars in tax and spending cuts while ramping up funding for defense and the administration's immigration agenda. The lower chamber voted 218 to 214 to approve the measure, with two Republicans — Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania — joining all Democrats in opposing the bill. The Senate passed the legislation, dubbed the "big, beautiful bill," earlier this week. The House vote tees up President Trump to sign the bill as early as Friday, coinciding with the July 4 holiday. The vote came after a marathon overnight session that saw GOP leaders overcome internal opposition to advance the bill, paving the way for final passage. Republican members who balked at many of the changes the Senate made to the legislation eventually relented and voted to pass it. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries tried to delay the inevitable by speaking on the floor for 8 hours and 44 minutes, setting the record for the longest House speech in U.S. history. He called out Republicans for the bill's deep cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs, highlighting the Americans who he said would suffer because of the bill. Before the vote, Speaker Mike Johnson said the bill will "make this country stronger, safer and more prosperous than ever before, and every American is going to benefit from that." "We've had spirited debate, we've had months of deliberation, and now we are finally ready to fulfill our promise to the American people," Johnson said. "That's what we are doing today." The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would add $3.4 trillion to federal deficits over the next 10 years and leave millions without health insurance, due to the cuts to Medicaid and programs under the Affordable Care Act. It would also dramatically increase funding for immigration enforcement, a key priority for Republicans and the president. GOP opposition melts away House members vote on President Trump's tax bill at the Capitol on July 3, 2025. ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images The final vote came after House GOP leadership scrambled Wednesday and into the wee hours Thursday to shore up support for the measure ahead of a key procedural vote. Although Johnson spent weeks pleading with his Senate counterparts not to make any major changes to the version of the bill that passed the lower chamber by a single vote in May, the Senate made a number of tweaks that irked House members on a number of fronts — from its cuts to Medicaid to its impact on the deficit. Johnson acknowledged that the Senate bill's changes "went a little further than many of us would've preferred," though he repeatedly urged that the final product was largely what the House had signed off on in May. The Senate-passed bill includes steeper Medicaid cuts, a higher increase in the debt limit and changes to the House bill's green energy policies and the state and local tax deduction. Other controversial provisions that faced pushback in both chambers, including the sale of public lands in nearly a dozen states, a 10-year moratorium on states regulating artificial intelligence and an excise tax on the renewable energy industry, were stripped from the Senate bill before heading back to the House. Potential holdouts, including moderates and members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, met with Mr. Trump on Wednesday as the White House pressured House Republicans to vote for the bill. The vote on the key procedural hurdle began around 9:30 p.m. Wednesday and didn't wrap up until about 3:20 a.m. Thursday. Five House Republicans initially voted no on the vote setting the rules for debate on the measure, which would have been enough to tank the vote. But the vote remained open as GOP leaders worked to shore up support, allowing lawmakers to change from no to yes. Johnson told reporters that Mr. Trump was "directly engaged" with skeptical members to get them onboard. "Members wanted to hear certain assurances from him about what's ahead, what the future will entail, and what we're going to do next, and all of that," Johnson said. "And he was very, very helpful in that process." Mr. Trump ramped up the pressure over Truth Social as a handful of Republican holdouts didn't appear to be budging, declaring: "FOR REPUBLICANS, THIS SHOULD BE AN EASY YES VOTE. RIDICULOUS!!!" "What are the Republicans waiting for??? What are you trying to prove??? MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT'S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!" Mr. Trump wrote shortly after midnight. The House ultimately voted 219 to 213 to advance the bill in a key victory for Republican leaders, who won the support of about a dozen GOP opponents to the rule. And when the vote finally came to an end, Fitzpatrick was the sole Republican opposed. He would also vote against final passage. Johnson told reporters that the breakthrough came amid help from the president, along with lengthy listening sessions with the bill's opponents, "making sure that their concerns were addressed." "A lot of people had to take the time to thoroughly go through the Senate's changes to our bill and that's fine," Johnson said. "That was necessary to get them to yes." , and contributed to this report.
