Latest news with #Texas-led
Mint
6 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Texas Google Antitrust Trial Delayed Pending Related DOJ Case
(Bloomberg) -- A judge delayed an Aug. 11 trial against Alphabet Inc.'s Google over claims by a Texas-led group of states that the company illegally monopolized the market for tools to publish online display advertisements. US District Judge Sean Jordan in Plano, Texas, will reschedule the trial after a related US Justice Department case is resolved. It's the second delay for the case, which was initially scheduled for late March. The case includes 15 other states and Puerto Rico. It is the second antitrust lawsuit to target Google's advertising technology and potentially force a sale of some of the business. The suit is also seeking more than $100 billion in civil penalties under various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. In April, a federal judge in Virginia largely ruled for the Justice Department and a separate group of states in their own antitrust case over Google's ad tech business, following a trial last year. US District Judge Leonie Brinkema found that Google illegally monopolized the market for software used by web publishers to sell ads and an exchange matching buyers and sellers of online ads. Brinkema has set a September hearing to determine a fix, which could include breaking up the company's ad tech business. The Texas trial will be scheduled after Brinkema's ruling. The two cases share many overlaps. Both argue that Google monopolized the market for display ads across the web by dominating all aspects of the sale of online ads. Both are seeking a break up of Google's ad tech business and arguing that past acquisitions by the company, including DoubleClick in 2008, should have been blocked by antitrust enforcers. Google is also facing a ruling in a separate Justice Department antitrust case that could force it to sell its popular Chrome web browser and make other changes to its search business. US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August 2024 that Google illegally monopolize the online search market and is now deciding on a remedy. More stories like this are available on
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Texas removes BlackRock from state blacklist after ESG pushback
After pulling back from ESG initiatives (Environmental, Social, and Governance) as a result of pushback from Texas trade officials, BlackRock (BLK) was removed from the state's blacklist that bars financial institutions from from being state contractors and receiving state investments. Yahoo Finance legal correspondent Alexis Keenan comes on Market Domination Overtime to explain the events and what this victory means for BlackRock and CEO Larry Fink. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime here. BlackRock getting back in good stead with the key Texas official after retreating from environmental, social, and governance initiatives. For more, let's bring in Yahoo Finance senior legal reporter Alexis Keenan. There had been a bit of a fight between Texas and BlackRock. A three-year-long fight, at least, and it was out of a Texas law that banned the state funds from being used to invest in companies that were antagonistic to fossil fuel production. So Texas has had on this law in the books, uh, passed in 2021, and BlackRock has been dealing with it, as have other companies since then. Uh, specifically, the law states that investments from the state's coffers cannot go to companies that harm, penalize, or limit the industry. So now, these Texas pension funds and other funds from the state, they're going to be able to be used to buy most of BlackRock's products. There are some funds that don't qualify still, and they're still on that blacklist. And this all, of course, comes after the CEO Larry Fink had disentangled BlackRock from a number of climate initiatives, two specific ones that the controller in Texas cites to in doing this pullback. Uh, in a statement, BlackRock said to Yahoo Finance that it's proud to help millions of Texas retire, Texans retire with dignity, and on behalf of clients, invest over 400 billion in corporations, local governments, energy infrastructure all throughout the state. Uh, a report from the Wall Street Journal has said that the law did indeed lead Texas to pull what they say billions. I don't say how many billions. We've asked as well, from, uh, from its investments. So this will change things significantly. It's there there's still big numbers, despite it being probably a drop in the bucket for BlackRock. It's still a lot of money when it comes to Texas. So at the same time, you have an antitrust suit, though, on the other hand going on. That is a Texas-led antitrust suit, and it alleges that, uh, that BlackRock and Vanguard and State Street collectively got together on, uh, an ESG initiative to reduce the production of coal, and so they say that that harmed consumers. So you have kind of two messages going on there, and the FTC and the DOJ have also sided with the states in this matter. Important story. Thank you so much, Alexis. Appreciate it. 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
04-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Texas cities dominate rankings for new home construction, report shows
The Brief Several Texas cities lead the nation in new home construction, with Houston ranking first and Dallas second in a new report. In early 2025, Houston issued over 11,000 permits and Dallas nearly 10,000, while San Antonio and Austin also made the top 10. This Texas-led construction boom aims to address a national housing deficit. DALLAS - Several of the top cities in the country for new home construction are right here in Texas, according to a new report. The report from ConsumerAffairs looked at where the most homes are being built in cities across the nation. By the numbers In January and February of this year, Dallas saw 9,811 new building permits issued. Only Houston issued more. 741 new homes were sold during the first two months of the year. Dallas did have the highest prices for newly-constructed homes of the major Texas cities. The average new home cost about $450,000. By the numbers In the first two months of 2025, more than 11,047 new building permits were issued in Houston. That was the most of the 150 U.S. cities included in the report. Houston also topped the list of the most new-construction homes sold with 1,314. The report cites Houston as being the only major metro area in the country without zoning laws. While Houston led the way, several other Texas cities made the list for new-home construction. Dallas (2), San Antonio (8) and Austin (9) also landed in the top 10. Of the top 10, only New York was outside the Sun Belt. Dig deeper The report says the average cost of a new-construction home in the United States is almost $485,000. The National Association of Home Builders believes the U.S. is facing a structural housing deficit and that at least 1.5 million units need to be built to balance the housing market. "What we have is a supply problem," said John Hunt, chief analyst and principal at MarketNsight, a housing analytics firm. "The more we can build, the less upward pressure there is on price … (and) the more folks can afford a home." Houston, Texas Dallas, Texas Phoenix, Arizona Atlanta, Georgia New York, New York Charlotte, North Carolina Orlando, Florida San Antonio, Texas Austin, Texas Tampa Bay, Florida The Source Information comes from the ConsumerAffairs Research Team analyzed data on new building permits and new-construction home sales in January and February. Building permit data comes from the U.S. Census Bureau. New-construction home sales data came from Zillow.
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Lone Star State — and Trump — versus BlackRock
The Trump administration has waded into a politically charged Texas-led legal fight to dilute US financial giants' alleged influence over corporate America. Last week, the US Justice Department and the US Federal Trade Commission filed a joint "statement of interest" siding with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and 10 other Republican-led states in an antitrust case against trillion-dollar asset managers BlackRock (BLK) and its rivals State Street (STT) and Vanguard. The charge: Using their substantial stock holdings, BlackRock and its rival financial firms coordinated a "left-wing ideological" attack on US coal companies, pressuring coal producers Arch Coal, Black Hills, and Peabody to cut coal production in the South Powder River Basin and thermal coal markets, the DOJ and FTC said in the court filing. The decreased output, they said, harmed US consumers by artificially inflating energy prices. "Carbon reduction is no more a defense to the conduct alleged here than it would be to price fixing among airlines that reduced the number of carbon-emitting flights," the DOJ and FTC said in the statement supporting the states' claims. The states allege that the financial firms agreed to reduce output through commitments to carbon-reduction organizations Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative and Climate Action 100+. They also say disclosures from the defendants and public statements show that they engaged directly with coal company executives in efforts to influence production levels, and they used their voting power when engagement fell short of meeting those goals. As large yet minority shareholders, the complaint claims, the defendants have more influence than their formal equity share. The actions extend beyond shareholder advocacy and passive investing by furthering their own "green energy" or net-zero goals, rather than the goals of the coal corporations, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the challengers claim. The agencies' effort to have the administration's perspective considered in the case, despite not being a party to the dispute, has drawn criticism from the defendants and others. On Wednesday, Campaign for Accountability (CfA), a nonpartisan nonprofit watchdog organization, accused the administration of targeting the money managers for political rather than law enforcement reasons. The group filed a Freedom of Information Act Request asking the agencies to disclose communications underlying their decision to weigh in on the case. CfA was co-founded in 2015 by Anne Weismann, former head counsel for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "This case isn't about antitrust law, but about conservative opposition to even recognizing the risks of climate change," CfA executive director Michelle Kuppersmith said. "Americans deserve to know who is influencing the FTC to use its antitrust authority to attack political opponents." Meanwhile, Derek Mountford, an antitrust partner at Gunster, said the lawsuit's rhetoric also signals political motivation. But, he added, it could ultimately answer an unsettled antitrust question over how competition law applies to the actions of asset managers with significant ownership interests in competing companies. Should asset managers and index fund providers, for example, be treated differently under the law than individuals and businesses that offer products and services and control multiple firms within a singular market? "If one individual owns a significant interest in three competing companies, alarm bells start going off in your head that there could be some anticompetitive conduct going on," Mountford said. Although the BlackRock scenario isn't as cut and dried, he said, concerns have been bubbling about the competitive role that institutional shareholders are allowed to play, compared to companies and suppliers that can more directly influence market competition. "This case is going to represent a much clearer answer to that question than I think we've gotten in any other case of its kind," Mountford said. BlackRock asked for a judge to dismiss the case and accused the administration of trying to "re-write" antitrust law under an "absurd" theory that the coal companies conspired with them to reduce production outputs. "Forcing asset managers to divest from coal companies will harm their ability to access capital and invest in their businesses and employees, likely leading to higher energy prices," the company said in a statement. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink made a series of disengagements from the company's environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives as bipartisan concerns spread over the financial giant's power to sway US markets. Fink publicly stated in June 2023 that he would cease using the politically sensitive acronym "ESG" because it had been "weaponized" by both the ideological right and the left. In January, before President Trump took office, the financial giant cut ties with UN-backed Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAM), an environmental advocacy group that pledged net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The administration's legal filing came roughly six months after a GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee issued a report accusing the three money managers of using their financial clout to force US coal companies to "decarbonize" and reach net zero. According to the report, the money managers forced coal companies to disclose and reduce carbon emissions through negotiations, stockholder proxy resolutions, and the replacement of directors at "recalcitrant companies." Democrats have also criticized the financial firms' outsized influence over US markets, but for different reasons. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), a vocal critic of the megamanagers' influence, described the group's stock ownership in 95% of S&P 500 (^GSPC) companies an "oligarchy." Sanders, along with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also criticized BlackRock for declining to use its weight to intervene in a coal mining labor dispute. Gunster's Mountford said the federal government's decision to weigh in on a state AG-initiated case is unusual but becoming increasingly more prevalent. "It's not something that courts have had to wrestle with, where you have the DOJ weighing in on these types of cases," he said. "It's a pretty new phenomenon, and it's one that Trump sort of pioneered ... and continued during the Biden administration." "I think," he added, "it's here to stay." Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed.
USA Today
12-03-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Will a Texas-led legal fight over gender dysphoria threaten disabled student protections?
Will a Texas-led legal fight over gender dysphoria threaten disabled student protections? Show Caption Hide Caption Cracker Barrel accused of refusing to serve special needs students 11 special education students and seven staff members from Maryland's Charles County Public Schools were refused service at a Waldorf Cracker Barrel during a community-based instruction outing. unbranded - Newsworthy Villanova University student Kaleigh Brendle has had low vision her entire young life. At her college in Pennsylvania and as a child growing up in New Jersey, she has used screen-reading technology that turns written documents or books into audio recordings and hardcover braille texts. To compensate for the longer time it takes to listen to passages being read aloud or in braille, she's been given extended time on exams. These accommodations – given to her through a federal disability protections law – have allowed her to attend and thrive in traditional classes with students who don't have a disability, she said. "Without a screen reader and braille, I would not be able to an have equitable education," Brendle said. "Braille is the ultimate equalizer. It has allowed me to learn literacy and keep up with my peers." Now, upwards of one million students with disabilities like Brendle who receive assistance in schools could be affected by a legal challenge to that same law − Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Known as 504 plans, the popular system for accommodating students in school are geared for kids who do qualify for help under disability plans known as IEPs, or Individualized Education Programs. The more than 50-year-old law requires federally funded schools to offer learning plans and accommodations to students with disabilities. The law also mandates protections from discrimination for Americans with disabilities in federally funded workplaces, hospitals and other agencies. In Sept. 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, filed Texas v. Becerra, leading a coalition of 17 Republican state attorneys general against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services after the Biden administration's Office of Civil Rights finalized a new rule under Section 504 last year. They've argued in their lawsuit that Section 504 is "unconstitutional" as it stands and they want to see the law re-evaluated in federal court and the repeal of key changes in the new regulations, which include protections for people who experience gender dysphoria and a clarified requirement for states to provide accommodations for people with disabilities in "the most integrated setting." The most integrated settings in schools under Section 504 are often traditional classrooms with students who don't have disabilities. The alternative is an "institutionalized," or isolated setting, which could be a classroom or school away from their peers. In a recent joint status report, the Republican state attorneys general, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. clarified they don't want to see the law entirely overturned or declared unconstitutional "on its face" – but they are concerned about the way the law is enforced. Despite the new development in the case, some disability experts say the lawsuit poses a serious threat to the federal disabilities law and the outcome of the case could still lead to the law getting overturned. Shira Wakschlag, a senior director of legal advocacy and general counsel of a national nonprofit organization that serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities called The Arc, says the lawsuit is "still very much alive" because it has not been amended or withdrawn. The original lawsuit stating Section 504 is "unconstitutional" is what's before the judge in the case – sparking worry, she said. Brendle worries most about the idea of students with disabilities being separated from their peers in traditional classrooms. "The 17 states said they'd never wanted to make all of 504 unconstitutional – even though that was written in their complaint," Brendle. "They also said that the only aspects they want to repeal have to do with integration and protecting people from being placed in institutions. No disabled person should be forced to live in an 'institution.'" Iowa joins suit over: Biden gender dysphoria rule, alarming parents with disabled children What is Section 504? How could a child be affected? Section 504 is a federal law that protects people with disabilities from discrimination in federally funded institutions, including schools. About 1.6 million students with disabilities were served under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act during the 2020-21 school year, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Education. Public schools and some private schools receive funding from the U.S. Department of Education to support students with disabilities. These students are guaranteed the right to a "free, appropriate public education" through the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act broadens those protections. The law guarantees a 504 plan for kids who need one at federally funded schools. The accommodation plans are for students with a wide range of disabilities who need specific tools and help to learn equally to their peers in integrated classrooms, said Daniel Van Sant, director of disability policy for the Harkin Institute for Public Policy & Citizen Engagement. Those tools can include noise-cancelling headphones for students to stay focused, a desk at the height of a wheelchair or a medical plan for a student who has an allergic reaction. One of the disabilities protected by Section 504 is attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD. Kids with ADHD make up a large portion of those with 504 accommodation plans, which are needed to help them focus and complete schoolwork in an integrated classroom setting, said Jeffrey Katz, a clinical psychologist and co-chair of the public policy committee for the organization Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, or CHADD. "Most kids with ADHD need help with organization, management plans that help them with talking out or modifying their work because kids with ADHD have trouble persisting with effort," he said. "All of these things can be done in a classroom." The legal requirement also forces teachers to follow student-specific plans to help them thrive in their classes and prevents students with disabilities from being segregated from their peers without disabilities, Katz said. What does the lawsuit say? The state attorneys general object to the addition of gender dysphoria to the list of student disabilities protected under Section 504. Gender dysphoria is the distress a person can feel when their gender identity doesn't match their sex assigned at birth. (LGBTQ+ rights advocates have long said gender dysphoria is a recognized medical condition that should be considered a disability under Section 504.) The states also oppose a part of the new rule that clarifies a long-standing stipulation of the rule that states must provide services for people with disabilities in the most integrated settings possible. In schools, that would mean kids with disabilities are required under the law to be served in traditional classrooms with students without disabilities. More broadly, they argue HHS under the Biden administration violated the Administrative Procedures Act and the Constitution's Spending Clause by placing new requirements on federal grants for people with disabilities, including students. The original lawsuit also states they want a judge to evaluate whether Section 504 as it stands and the regulation of the law is constitutional. Following the outcry from disability rights advocates and parents of students with disabilities, the coalition of state attorneys general have clarified in a court document they do not want to see the law removed in part or as a whole, but that the regulations of the law as it stands are too restrictive on states and unconstitutional as applied. On Feb. 19, the plaintiffs filed the joint status report in the U.S. District Court in Texas after President Donald Trump in January signed an executive order stating that agencies shall not 'promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology," including gender dysphoria. They said in the court document that they are evaluating their position in the lawsuit based on this move. The state attorneys general suing include those from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. But the potential axing of protections for some people experiencing gender dysphoria under the law doesn't cover all of the states' worries. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach has said he joined the lawsuit because of the added inclusion of gender dysphoria under Section 504. On the other hand, Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor has said he's concerned that the "integrated setting" requirement will increase costs on states and burdens Medicaid providers. "From Alaska's perspective, the gender dysphoria is a very small piece of the lawsuit," said Patty Sullivan, a spokesperson from the Alaska Department of Law, in an email to USA TODAY. "Our concerns have been and continue to be on the adverse impacts this rule will have on the provision of services to people with severe disabilities and on state programs." U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge James Wesley Hendrix is currently assigned to the case. Paxton's office and several of the other state attorneys general named in the complaint did not respond to inquiries about the lawsuit from USA TODAY. Sullivan, the spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Law, pointed to an op-ed written by Alaska State Attorney General Treg Taylor for The Alaska Beacon. In the article, Taylor said the changes made to Section 504 have jeopardized "the continued viability of state programs and services and are impossible for any state to fully comply with." "In fact, the new regulation is likely to undermine the State's ability to provide ongoing service and supports,' Taylor wrote. "It requires states to redesign their service delivery systems to conform to newly imagined and vaguely defined requirements, regardless of the cost or impact to the state." Does Project 2025 eliminate IEPs? Not explicitly, but experts are wary Inside and beyond the classroom: 'This will touch millions of disabled children' Despite her vision impairment, Brendle has been able to succeed academically and socially in her schooling career – at least up until this point. But she worries she and other college students will not continue to prosper in schools and whether it will be more difficult to secure jobs if Section 504 is removed from federal law. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, another disabilities protections law, mandates student learning adjustments on learning assessments and goals. But Section 504 goes further to specify that people with disabilities must be given the tools to be thrive in integrated settings in federally-funded schools, workplaces and other agencies and organizations, said Carrie Gillispie, a senior policy analyst with the education policy program at national nonpartisan think tank New America. Brendle said she's heard of many people abundantly qualified for their job but denied that job just on the basis of a disability. She fears that reality could worsen. "This will touch millions of disabled children in some capacity," Brendle said. Contact Kayla Jimenez at kjimenez@ Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez.
