Supreme Court to hear arguments on Tesque wastewater July 8
The state's highest court will hear arguments in early July over a legal challenge to sewage disposal in Tesuque Village, as residents contend that state regulators' permitting actions were unconstitutional.
New Mexico Supreme Court asked to weigh in on Tesuque wastewater conflict
In an order issued last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court set a date for arguments on July 8.
The hearing allows the justices to ask questions of attorneys, said Tom Hnasko, an attorney representing residents, with a brief 20-minute window for arguments.
At the center of the dustup is the New Mexico Environment Department's nod for a proposed permit for plans to dispose of treated wastewater from Bishop's Lodge, a luxury resort, and adjacent homes.
The permit allows for the discharge up to 30,000 gallons per day of treated wastewater into a new low-dose disposal field using a treatment plant installed in 2024. The current state permit allows Bishop's Lodge to dispose of about half that across two disposal fields on the property.
Residents objecting to the permit coalesced into the nonprofit Protect Tesuque, which claims the disposal method threatens to pollute drinking wells downstream. Tesuque Village, with a population of about 1,000 people, relies on private wells and septic tanks.
In April, attorneys representing Project Tesuque submitted an emergency petition that claimed the state's process amounted to a constitutional violation by unequally enforcing limitations in liquid waste laws between smaller and larger permits.
In court documents, The New Mexico Environment Department requested the court dismiss the proceedings, saying the claims did not meet the threshold of an emergency, needlessly interrupted the permitting process and that the water was treated to exceed state and federal quality standards.
'[Bishop's Lodge] Santa Fe has the best available technology wastewater treatment facility on site that treats wastewater so thoroughly that the wastewater can be recycled and reused… to irrigate food crops,' the response stated.
Administrative proceedings for the permit's approval started in May, but were delayed following an order from the New Mexico Supreme Court to pause the hearings until the court weighed in.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
From Laos to Brazil, Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers. But even the winners will pay a price
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers – from small, poor countries like Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners like Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty taxes – tariff – on the products they export to the United States starting Aug. 7. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that caved to Trump's demands — and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run — even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. 'In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. 'The biggest winner is Trump,' said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. 'He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded – dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls 'Liberation Day'' – April 2 – when the president announced 'reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs — all of which is now being challenged in court. Winners will still pay higher tariffs than before Trump took office Trump retreated temporarily after his Liberation Day announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually, some of them did, caving to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs for the privilege of continuing to sell into the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States — up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the UK for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low single-digit rates they paid last year — but lower than the tariffs he was threatening (30% on the EU and 25% on Japan). Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt. '20% from the beginning has not been our goal, we hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate,' Taiwan's president Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Bashing Brazil, clobbering Canada, shellacking the Swiss Countries that didn't knuckle under — and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath — got hit harder. Even some of the poor were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 — versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for trying to lose his electoral defeat in 2022. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on longstanding U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax — even higher than the 31% Trump originally announced on April 2. "The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his Liberation Day tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wend its way through the legal system, and may likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. 'If (the tariffs) get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Paying more for knapsacks and video games Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who try to pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits — or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker, have all hiked prices due to U.S. tariffs "This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,'' Appleton said. 'Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. 'The U.S. consumer's a big loser,″ Wolff said. ____ AP Economics Writer Christopher Rugaber contributed to this story. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In pardoning reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, Trump taps into a sense of persecution felt by his conservative Christian base
President Donald Trump has never met Todd Chrisley, the reality TV star that he pardoned on May 27, 2025, along with Chrisley's wife, Julie. But the pair have much in common. Both are admired by their fans for their brash personas and salty ripostes. Both enjoy lavish lifestyles: Trump is known for his real estate deals and rococo White House redecoration, and Chrisley for his entrepreneurial skill and acquisitions of sprawling properties. Quick-tempered tycoons, they live large and keep score – especially when people cross them. And maybe most importantly, both have run into legal trouble with Georgia prosecutors. In 2019, The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia indicted the Chrisleys for fraud and tax evasion, and the Fulton County district attorney filed charges against Trump in 2023. In 2022, Todd and Julie Chrisley were tried in Fulton County, found guilty and sentenced to 12- and seven-year sentences, respectively. A year later, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Trump as part of an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia, a case that's currently in limbo. After the Chrisleys went to prison, their daughter Savannah began campaigning for their release. Her efforts to win over prominent conservatives – including her outspoken support for Trump – led to a prime-time appearance at the 2024 Republican National Convention. 'My family has been persecuted by rogue prosecutors due to our public profile and conservative beliefs,' she told the delegates and a television audience of 15 million viewers. Turning an insult into an accolade, she claimed prosecutors had called them the 'Trumps of the South.' Her framing of her parents' imprisonment aligns with Trump's broader campaign narrative of victimization, redemption and retribution, which critics say he has continued to promote and carry out during his second term. Preaching perfection Like Trump, who starred on 'The Apprentice' for 11 years, the Chrisleys had their own reality television show. 'Chrisley Knows Best' aired on USA Network from 2014 to 2023. I'm familiar with the Chrisleys because I wrote about Todd in a 2018 book I co-edited on religion and reality television. The show was particularly popular among viewers in their 30s, who were fascinated by the Chrisleys' extravagant lifestyle and Todd's over-the-top personality. The self-proclaimed 'patriarch of perfection,' Todd flew twice a month to Los Angeles from Atlanta, and later Nashville, to have his hair cut and highlighted. He spoke freely about using Botox and invited viewers into his room-size closet where his clothes were organized by color. No matter the time of day, Todd was camera-ready: buffed, manicured and dressed in designer clothes. The family enjoyed all the trappings of success: fancy cars, a palatial home and expensive vacations. Yet, in almost every episode, Todd made clear that his life, and theirs by extension, centered on family, religion and responsibility. In fact, many episodes revolved around Todd's efforts to promote these values through his parenting lessons. On the one hand, Todd tried to teach responsibility and the value of hard work to his five children. On the other hand, he bribed and cajoled them into doing what he wanted. Todd seemed to have it both ways: His strictness and traditional values appealed to Christian viewers, but his sass and cussing won over secular audiences. Yet sometimes his words rang hollow. Todd talked a lot about work, but viewers rarely saw him at a job. He frequently quoted the Bible, but audiences seldom saw him in church. He extolled family, but a few years into the series, his two older children, Lindsie and Kyle, disappeared from the show. In 2023, the series disappeared, too. By then, the Chrisleys were in prison. Trump knows best On the day of his inauguration, when Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of the roughly 1,500 people involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, he vowed to 'take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to the weaponization of law enforcement.' According to the president, the imprisonment of Todd and Julie Chrisley and his pardoning of them is just that. 'Your parents are going to be free and clean and I hope that we can do it by tomorrow,' Trump told Savannah Chrisley in a recorded phone conversation. 'They've been given a pretty harsh treatment based on what I'm hearing.' Trump's pardons, which have freed a number of conservatives convicted of fraud, may stem from his belief that he and many others have been falsely accused and persecuted by the elite, liberal establishment. But the pardons also strike home for his right-wing religious supporters, many of whom think that Democrats will do anything to quash their faith, including using the justice system to specifically target Christians. 'We live in a nation founded on freedom, liberty and justice for all. Justice is supposed to be blind. But today, we have a two-faced justice system,' Savannah Chrisley said during her RNC speech. 'Look at what they are doing to countless Christians and conservatives that the government has labeled them extremists or even worse.' While those claims have been disputed, eradicating anti-Christian bias, at home and abroad, has nevertheless become a centerpiece of Trump's policies during his second term. The lawyers who prosecuted the Chrisleys had a different perspective. They called Todd and Julie 'career swindlers who have made a living by jumping from one fraud scheme to another, lying to banks, stiffing vendors and evading taxes at every corner,' and whose reputations were 'based on the lie that their wealth came from dedication and hard work.' The couple were ultimately found guilty of defrauding Atlanta-area banks of US$36 million by using falsified papers to apply for mortgages, obtaining false loans to repay older loans, and not repaying those loans. They also were convicted of hiding their true income from the IRS and owing $500,000 in back taxes. At his sentencing, Todd said that he intended to pay it all back. At a press conference after his pardon, he said he was convicted for something he did not do. In the days since their release, the Chrisleys announced they were filming a new reality show, which will air on Lifetime. The series will focus on the couple's legal struggles, imprisonment, pardon and reunification. Thanks to the constitutional protections of the presidency, Trump's reelection has shielded him from ongoing federal criminal prosecution. And now, thanks to the stroke of Trump's pen, the 'Trumps of the South' are back in business, too. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Diane Winston, USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism Read more: How the gladiators inspired evangelicals' sense of persecution Trump's Jan. 6 pardon order 'flies in the face of the facts' of violent insurrection, retired federal judge explains Fulton County charges Donald Trump with racketeering, other felonies – a Georgia election law expert explains 5 key things to know Diane Winston does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Verge
28 minutes ago
- The Verge
The enforcer that could break up Apple and Google is facing upheaval
The sudden firing of two high-ranking antitrust officials this week is signaling upheaval at an agency responsible for arguing some of the biggest tech monopoly cases in decades. Two top deputies to Department of Justice Antitrust Division chief Gail Slater were fired earlier this week for what a DOJ official would only explain as 'insubordination' in an unattributed statement. Antitrust trade publication MLex reported that termination letters for Roger Alford and Bill Rinner, who also served in the first Trump administration, did not mention the reason for their firing. (Alford later posted a copy of his letter, which he said he framed and hung in his University of Notre Dame office.) But accounts from multiple publications including CBS News have detailed internal turmoil over a merger that Attorney General Pam Bondi's chief of staff Chad Mizelle reportedly helped usher through over objections from the Antitrust Division's leadership, after close allies of President Donald Trump's got involved. The ordeal fuels concerns that Trump's penchant for granting political favors to his allies will overrule any true bipartisan enthusiasm for antitrust crackdowns, including in some of the most consequential actions involving the tech industry. Slater, who worked for Vice President JD Vance in the Senate, is widely seen as a respected and serious figure in antitrust circles. She's been critical of Big Tech and has continued some of the Biden administration's most aggressive antitrust pushes, albeit with changes reflecting a distinct 'America First' flavor. But the firing of two close colleagues she relied on to carry out her vision — which Slater reportedly opposed — calls into question whether such policy ideals can survive an administration with a history of rooting out dissenters. Personnel decisions at the DOJ have always ultimately fallen to the president, but the Antitrust Division has traditionally operated with a degree of distance. 'There's no pretense that that custom exists anymore,' says Bill Kovacic, a former chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). 'To outsiders, an episode like this shows that political intervention works, and then if you can hire the right people to get to the White House or to the DOJ front office with the right arguments, you can override the preferences of the Antitrust Division.' 'An episode like this shows that political intervention works' The merger settlement involved Hewlett Packard Enterprise's $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks. The DOJ filed a lawsuit in January seeking to block the merger, which it alleged would reduce competition in the market for enterprise-grade wireless networking equipment. But this week, the parties said they 'reached a settlement that resolves the government's competitive concerns.' Unnamed Trump administration officials told Axios that national security aims were a big factor behind the ultimate settlement, including strengthening US competitiveness against China's Huawei. But other reports suggest political influence might have played a bigger role. HPE disclosed in a legal filing that Mike Davis, an influential Trump ally, was among the company's advisors who had met with DOJ representatives leading up to the settlement agreement. Though Davis has called Slater a friend, the antitrust chief did not engage with him during the settlement negotiations, The Wall Street Journal reported, and members of her team took issue with politically-connected lawyers like Davis being brought in to influence the talks. Slater resisted the HPE agreement, according to the WSJ, and in the DOJ press release, her statement simply thanked the 'hardworking men and women of the Antitrust Division for their work on this case,' without mention of the settlement itself. In a letter to the judge overseeing the merger case, four Senate Democrats charge that the proposed settlement actually wouldn't resolve the antitrust concerns with the deal, in part because it would require HPE to sell a business that the lawmakers say doesn't directly compete with Juniper's offerings anyway. Alongside reports about potential procedural issues in reaching the settlement, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) wrote, 'These reports raise concerns regarding whether the settlement advances the interests of the public or a well-connected, well-paid group of insiders. At a minimum, it's unclear whether the settlement even addresses the Justice Department's original antitrust concerns.' 'This is a massive change from how the Justice Department has operated for the last 50 years,' Bill Baer, who previously led antitrust enforcement at both the DOJ and FTC, said about the reported events. 'Since Watergate, there has been something of a firewall between White House personnel and the Justice Department on how to handle individual investigations and cases. The events of the last two weeks suggest that that firewall no longer exists.' The Antitrust Division still has many major tech matters on its plate: a promised appeal of its Google search monopolization case and likely one for its Google ad tech case, an Apple monopolization trial, and a Live Nation-Ticketmaster monopoly case. The high-profile nature of many of these cases, and the fact that they align with other interests of the administration, makes it less likely they'll see a 'cheap settlement,' Kovacic says. Even so, he adds, 'this episode shows that it's a matter of coming up with a deal that would be pleasing.' 'If the court starts to think that something other than your professional judgment is guiding your decisions, there's nothing to respect' In the meantime, the loss of Alford and Rinner is a blow to the agency's tech expertise and external credibility. Alford advised the Texas attorney general's office on its monopolization investigation into Google and led international antitrust policy under the first Trump administration, while Rinner was a respected figure leading the agency's merger enforcement. 'Your ability to prevail in court depends a lot on persuading courts to trust you, and the main basis for trust is not just your technical legal arguments, but your demonstrated strong professional judgment,' Kovacic says. 'If the court starts to think that something other than your professional judgment is guiding your decisions, there's nothing to respect.' We might learn more about how the HPE-Juniper deal got approved and what occurred around Alford and Rinner's firings if the judge overseeing the case decides to probe further under a transparency law known as the Tunney Act. While experts say it would be difficult to reverse the DOJ decision, hearing from those involved in the negotiations may at least shed light on what kind of dealmaking occurred. 'This creates the image that everything that happens in the US is subject to a political fix,' Kovacic says. 'It's the kind of scenario that the US in the past has warned against and said countries ought not to allow themselves to succumb to this kind of decision-making.' Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Lauren Feiner Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Analysis Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Antitrust Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Apple Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Features Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Google Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Policy Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Politics Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Tech
