Latest news with #BlackfeetNation
Time Out
03-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Time Out
100 life-sized elephants have arrived in Los Angeles as part of a free, public exhibition
This summer, Beverly Hills has been overrun—in the best possible way—by a thundering herd of elephants. One hundred life-sized elephant sculptures have officially taken up residence in Beverly Gardens Park as part of The Great Elephant Migration, a free public art exhibition and global conservation campaign running through Friday, August 1. Spanning four blocks along Santa Monica Boulevard from Rodeo Drive to Rexford Drive, the handcrafted herd marks the grand finale of a 5,000-mile journey across the U.S. that began on the East Coast. But these aren't just photogenic pachyderms. Each sculpture was made from invasive lantana by Indigenous artisans from India's Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve and modeled after real elephants known to the communities who live alongside them. Their final push west was a symbolic convoy that crossed iconic American landscapes from Yellowstone to Joshua Tree. Along the way, the elephants were honored by tribal leaders, serenaded by drummers, escorted down the Las Vegas Strip (yes, really) and cheered by supporters from Blackfeet Nation to Beverly Hills. The elephants arrive not just as art but as ambassadors. 'The Great Elephant Migration is more than an art installation,' said Beverly Hills Mayor Sharona Nazarian. 'It's a powerful sign of a reminder of our joint responsibility to protect our planet and wildlife.' On July 20, the installation gets even more stylish with Wrapped in History, a textile takeover featuring 70 bespoke blankets created by global designers. The works will be auctioned online, with the proceeds supporting wildlife coexistence efforts worldwide. And for those looking to make the magic permanent, the elephants themselves are also for sale, ranging from $8,000 to $22,000. The grand finale is a public farewell event on August 1 called 'Kiss Them Goodbye,' hosted by luxury beauty brand Chantecaille, one of the migration's key sponsors. Snap a photo, bring a friend, maybe fall in love with a tusker—but know that this installation is here to move hearts and habitats.
Associated Press
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Tribes move to join lawsuit challenging Montana election laws
A group of tribes in Montana alleges a new election law will disenfranchise Native voters and has moved to join a lawsuit challenging it. On Tuesday, the ACLU of Montana, American Civil Liberties Union nationally and Native American Rights Fund filed a motion to intervene in an existing case on behalf of a group of tribal plaintiffs, including the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Fort Belknap Indian Community and Western Native Voice. In their complaint, the group of tribal plaintiffs argues the changes to Election Day voter registration outlined in Senate Bill 490 disproportionately harm Native Americans in rural and tribal communities who already face significant barriers to voting. Sponsored by Sen. Mike Cuffe, R-Eureka, SB 490 changes the deadline for registering to vote or changing voter information. Where previously anyone in line by 8 p.m. on Election Day could register to vote and then cast a ballot, the new law, signed by Gov. Greg Gianforte on May 5, closes voter registration at noon on Election Day (generally Tuesdays) and ends the ability to register on the Monday before an election. State lawmakers who supported the legislation argued it would curb long lines and benefit election workers; opponents said it was unconstitutional. '(SB 490) disproportionately burdens Native voters compared to non-Native voters due to inequities in mail delivery service, internet access, access to post offices and post office boxes, and increased burdens on Native voters due to disproportionate rates of poverty and lack of vehicle access,' tribal plaintiffs allege in their complaint. Northern Cheyenne Tribal President Gene Small called SB 490 'anti-democratic.' 'When you live miles and miles from the nearest polling place, and the roads are snowed in all morning, taking away eight hours of Election Day registration creates real life problems for everyday voters,' he said in a statement. The lawsuit, originally filed in May by the Montana Federation of Public Employees, also challenges Senate Bill 276, also brought by Cuffe, which revises voter identification laws. The law requires a voter's ID to be 'current, valid and readable' and eliminates the ability for a voter who cannot provide an ID to provide other forms of identification to vote. Those forms could include a bank statement or utility bill. While tribal plaintiffs did not address SB 276 in their complaint, the Montana Federation of Public Employees, the state's largest union, called SB 276 and SB 490 'plainly unconstitutional,' saying they infringe on Montanans' right to vote. The organization specifically alleged that SB 490 would cause confusion among voters and election workers, and that SB 276 'arbitrarily heightens the requirements for acceptable voter IDs' while eliminating 'an important safety net for those who are unable to meet them.' The Montana Federation of Public Employees filed the lawsuit in the Montana First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County on May 12, just seven days after Gianforte signed the bills into law. Tribes in Montana have for years successfully challenged election laws they say will harm Native voters. In 2018, Montana voters approved a ballot measure, the Ballot Interference Prevention Act, which placed restrictions on ballot collection. Montana tribes and Native voting organizations in 2020 filed a lawsuit challenging the measure. Months later, a district court struck down the law. In 2021, the state Legislature passed House Bill 176, which required voters to register no later than noon on the day before the election, and House Bill 530, prohibiting some people from distributing or collecting mail-in ballots from voters. The ACLU of Montana and Native American Rights Fund filed a lawsuit on behalf of several tribes and Native organizations, alleging the laws disenfranchised Native voters. And in March 2024, the Montana Supreme Court ruled the laws violated the state's constitution. 'It's racism to try and enact the same laws over again,' Fort Belknap Indian Community President Jeffrey Stiffarm said in a statement. 'We will not let the state drag us backwards or silence our people.' ___ This story was originally published by Montana Free Press and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Prediction: The Stock Market Will Soar Before the End of 2025 (but It Could be at the Cost of Trump's Tariffs)
There's a clear correlation: Tariffs on, stock market down. Tariffs off, stock market up. At least seven lawsuits have been filed challenging the Trump administration's tariffs. If the federal courts block Trump's tariffs, the stock market will soar. 10 stocks we like better than S&P 500 Index › Do you view the proverbial glass of water as half-full or half-empty? The answer could determine how you think about the stock market's performance this year. If you're an optimist, you'll probably focus on the resurgence of the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) in recent weeks. On the other hand, pessimists will likely point out that the S&P 500 appears to be losing momentum, was firmly in correction territory not long ago, and is still down year to date. I'm more interested in where stocks will be than where they've been. And I predict the stock market will soar before the end of 2025. But this big rally could be at the cost of President Trump's tariffs. Look at the following chart that shows the S&P 500's performance so far in 2025. The index started the year on a relatively positive note. It started to decline in late February. In early April, the S&P 500 crashed. However, it soon rebounded. What caused this volatility? Unless you haven't paid attention to the news over the past few months, you can probably immediately answer this question. The S&P 500's swings have been caused by President Trump's tariffs. Each S&P 500 decline this year occurred when investors were concerned about tariffs. The steep sell-off in April came after the president announced his "Liberation Day" tariffs on nearly every country. But when investors' tariff worries waned, the S&P 500 rose. For example, the strong recent rebound was sparked by President Trump's delaying his steep "reciprocal" tariffs by 90 days. There's a clear correlation between tariffs and the S&P 500's performance. Tariffs on, S&P 500 down. Tariffs off, S&P 500 up. My prediction that the stock market will soar before the end of 2025 hinges on my view that the tariff threat will be taken off the table. How could tariffs become a non-issue for stocks with a self-proclaimed "Tariff Man" in the White House? I think the answer could be embedded in the U.S. Constitution's system of checks and balances. The judicial branch could limit what the executive branch does. At least seven lawsuits have been filed challenging Trump's tariffs. Some were initiated by businesses and legal advocacy groups. Others were filed by states, including 12 states that joined forces: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. Members of the Blackfeet Nation have also sued the Trump administration over tariffs. Granted, the White House has already won a small victory. Last week, U.S. Judge T. Kent Wetherell II, a Trump appointee, said that the president can unilaterally impose tariffs. He based his decision on a precedent set by a federal customs court in 1971 that allowed President Nixon to briefly levy 10% tariffs on many imports. However, Wetherell transferred the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, so his take won't ultimately matter. This federal trade court recently heard arguments in another tariff lawsuit, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump. The three-judge panel seemed skeptical about the Trump administration's stance that federal courts shouldn't be able to review the legality of the president's tariffs. One question before the courts is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), the federal statute the Trump administration used to justify imposing tariffs, allows the president to levy tariffs at all. The IEEPA doesn't specifically mention tariffs. Another challenge relates to Trump's declaring a national emergency, as required by the IEEPA, based on trade deficits. The IEEPA states that the national emergency declaration must result from an "unusual and extraordinary threat." Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Brian Marshall noted before the U.S. Court of International Trade last week that the U.S. has had trade deficits with the rest of the world for the past 49 years. He argued, "This is not an unusual problem." The legal doctrine known as "nondelegation" presents another key hurdle for the White House. This nondelegation doctrine says that Congress can't delegate its powers to other entities without "an intelligent principle" by which the entity to which power is delegated can follow that limits its authority. The U.S. Constitution only permits Congress to levy taxes and tariffs. Perhaps the most significant question related to the administration's tariffs, though, is aptly named the "major questions doctrine." Under this doctrine, Congress must "speak clearly" when it delegates authority to the executive branch in areas of "vast economic and political significance." The IEEPA doesn't clearly give the president the power to impose tariffs. The tariffs imposed by the Trump administration definitely have "vast economic and political significance." I suspect that this could be the hill that the president's tariffs die on when the U.S. Supreme Court inevitably weighs in on the issue. I'll readily admit that I'm not 100% confident in my prediction that the stock market will soar before the end of 2025. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not a Nostradamus. However, I'm reasonably confident in my prediction. The legal arguments against the administration's tariffs make sense to me. If the courts block Trump's tariffs, the stock market will soar -- maybe even enough to make that proverbial glass of water overflow. Before you buy stock in S&P 500 Index, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and S&P 500 Index wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $639,271!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $804,688!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 957% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 167% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of May 19, 2025 Keith Speights has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Prediction: The Stock Market Will Soar Before the End of 2025 (but It Could be at the Cost of Trump's Tariffs) was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
18-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘An economic fallacy': Rand Paul doesn't see the benefits of tariffs
Sen. Rand Paul attacked the economic logic of President Donald Trump's aggressive tariff strategy on Sunday — and agreed that the policies raise constitutional concerns. The Kentucky Republican said Trump's sweeping tariffs on foreign trading partners are based on 'an economic fallacy' about trade deficits and objected to the president's move to pursue them without congressional approval during an interview on ABC's 'The Week.' 'Well, tariffs are taxes, and when you put a tax on a business, it's always passed through as a cost. So, there will be higher prices,' Paul said, arguing, as he has in the past, that unfettered global trade is enormously beneficial. 'The only trade that means anything is the individual who buys something. That's the only real trade. And that by very definition, if it's voluntary, is mutually beneficial, or the trade doesn't occur.' When asked about the legality of Trump's tariffs, Paul seemingly sided with a constitutional provision citing Congress's authority over taxation. 'In the past, the court has allowed these things, but I think it'll be an interesting thing because most tariffs in our history have been passed by Congress,' he said. 'We've never had widespread tariffs that have been done by fiat by a president, and I object to that.' Paul is one of a few Republicans who hesitated to rally around Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs on foreign trading partners, which the administration rolled out in early April. But Trump ended up backtracking on the high-stakes levies, issuing a 90-day pause on the tariffs for every affected country except China in April. However, after a series of back-and-forth retaliatory measures, China and the U.S. came to a preliminary deal to significantly lower the levies on each other earlier this month. There are several legal challenges brewing against Trump's tariffs. A recent lawsuit led by New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James and the top prosecutor of 11 other states asserts that the policies have 'upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy.' Other plaintiffs include members of the Blackfeet Nation in Montana, the New Civil Liberties Alliance in Florida, the Liberty Justice Center in the U.S. Court of International Trade and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Courts have previously upheld the legality of tariffs when they're based on congressional authority. However, Trump's decision to impose tariffs by himself has raised legal questions about whether he is exceeding his delegated power. 'Now, we do have a long history, though, of both parties abdicating their responsibility on tariffs and granting power to Congress, which brings up another constitutional question, can Congress delegate powers given to it under the Constitution to the president?' Paul said.
Politico
18-05-2025
- Business
- Politico
‘An economic fallacy': Rand Paul doesn't see the benefits of tariffs
Sen. Rand Paul attacked the economic logic of President Donald Trump's aggressive tariff strategy on Sunday — and agreed that the policies raise constitutional concerns. The Kentucky Republican said Trump's sweeping tariffs on foreign trading partners are based on 'an economic fallacy' about trade deficits and objected to the president's move to pursue them without congressional approval during an interview on ABC's 'The Week.' 'Well, tariffs are taxes, and when you put a tax on a business, it's always passed through as a cost. So, there will be higher prices,' Paul said, arguing, as he has in the past, that unfettered global trade is enormously beneficial. 'The only trade that means anything is the individual who buys something. That's the only real trade. And that by very definition, if it's voluntary, is mutually beneficial, or the trade doesn't occur.' When asked about the legality of Trump's tariffs, Paul seemingly sided with a constitutional provision citing Congress's authority over taxation. 'In the past, the court has allowed these things, but I think it'll be an interesting thing because most tariffs in our history have been passed by Congress,' he said. 'We've never had widespread tariffs that have been done by fiat by a president, and I object to that.' Paul is one of a few Republicans who hesitated to rally around Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs on foreign trading partners, which the administration rolled out in early April. But Trump ended up backtracking on the high-stakes levies, issuing a 90-day pause on the tariffs for every affected country except China in April. However, after a series of back-and-forth retaliatory measures, China and the U.S. came to a preliminary deal to significantly lower the levies on each other earlier this month. There are several legal challenges brewing against Trump's tariffs. A recent lawsuit led by New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James and the top prosecutor of 11 other states asserts that the policies have 'upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy.' Other plaintiffs include members of the Blackfeet Nation in Montana, the New Civil Liberties Alliance in Florida, the Liberty Justice Center in the U.S. Court of International Trade and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Courts have previously upheld the legality of tariffs when they're based on congressional authority. However, Trump's decision to impose tariffs by himself has raised legal questions about whether he is exceeding his delegated power. 'Now, we do have a long history, though, of both parties abdicating their responsibility on tariffs and granting power to Congress, which brings up another constitutional question, can Congress delegate powers given to it under the Constitution to the president?' Paul said.
