Organization sues McDonald’s over college scholarships for Latinos
The American Alliance for Equal Rights is suing restaurant chain McDonald’s for alleged discrimination. The organization, led by Edward Blum, who successfully argued against affirmative action in colleges before the U.S. Supreme Court, is now targeting the golden arches and its scholarship program for Latino and Hispanic students.
The lawsuit alleges that McDonald’s Hacer National Scholarship discriminates against non-Hispanics and racial minorities, such as Black people, Arab people and Native Americans. It claims those groups are barred from receiving the scholarship based on their ethnic heritage and that discrimination is unlawful.
The lawsuit was filed in Nashville, Tennessee, where the program is administered by a company named International Scholarship and Tuition Service.
Hacer is one of the biggest corporate awards for high school seniors in the country. Those scholarships range from $5,000 to $100,000. The scholarships are limited to students with at least one parent who is of Latino or Hispanic heritage.
Since the mid-1980s, McDonald’s says it has awarded more than $33 million to more than 17,000 Hispanic and Latino students. The company selects recipients based on their academic achievement, community involvement, personal statement and financial need.
The American Alliance for Equal Rights is seeking an injunction because the deadline to apply is less than one month away on Feb. 6. The suit notes that an unnamed high school student from Arkansas, who is not Latino or Hispanic, wants to apply for a scholarship.
Blum wants McDonald’s to put the program on hold “so it can be opened to all under-resourced high-school students, regardless of their ethnic heritage.”
McDonald’s says it is now reviewing the lawsuit. It comes at a time when big companies, including McDonald’s, have begun to roll back their diversity initiatives.
Special counsel Jack Smith resigns as fight to block Trump report continues
Special counsel Jack Smith resigned from the Department of Justice after concluding investigations into two criminal cases involving President-elect Donald Trump. His resignation ends a contentious chapter in the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute a former president.
Smith, a former war crimes prosecutor, led investigations into Trump’s handling of classified documents and alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Both cases faced significant legal setbacks.
A Trump-appointed federal judge in Florida dismissed the classified documents case, citing issues with Smith’s appointment. Separately, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents have broad immunity for actions taken while in office, which stalled the election-related case.
Smith’s departure became public in a DOJ court filing on Saturday, Jan. 11, where officials also sought to overturn an order from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon temporarily blocking the release of Smith’s final report.
Cannon, also appointed by Trump, restricted the Justice Department from sharing findings related to the investigations. The DOJ argued that the judge overstepped her authority and filed an emergency motion with a federal appeals court to reverse the order.
The Justice Department plans to release portions of the report related to the election investigation but will withhold sections on the classified documents case due to ongoing legal proceedings involving Trump associates.
Trump’s November election victory complicated the cases further, as DOJ policy bars the prosecution of a sitting president. Smith dropped both cases but defended their merits, citing “unprecedented circumstances” in court filings.
Throughout the investigations, Trump denied wrongdoing, labeling the probes politically motivated. Following Smith’s resignation, Trump criticized him for achieving “nothing” and accused him of targeting political opponents.
Garland appointed Smith in 2022 to ensure independence in the investigations. Smith, known for prosecuting war crimes at The Hague and high-profile corruption cases, brought charges against Trump that marked the first federal criminal cases against a former U.S. president.
SCOTUS to hear case that could impact ACA’s preventive health coverage
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could impact the future of certain “free preventive healthcare services” under the Affordable Care Act. At the heart of the case is the constitutionality of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which recommends more than 100 preventive services that insurers and group health plans must cover at no cost to patients.
The case was triggered by a legal challenge to the task force’s recommendation that a medication to reduce the risk of contracting HIV be fully covered for recipients of former President Barack Obama’s signature health care law. America First Legal, on behalf of four individuals and two small businesses, filed a lawsuit in Texas. They argue they should not be forced to provide full insurance coverage for services like HIV prevention medication. They cite “religious and procedural” objections.
America First Legal also contends that the task force members who make decisions on such matters are unconstitutional. They say it is because they were not nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate, as required for “principal” officers under the Constitution.
In 2023, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that task force members are, in fact, principal officers who should have undergone the nomination and confirmation process.
The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court. They argue the decision “threatens healthcare protections for millions of Americans that have been in place for 14 years.”
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the individuals and businesses who sued, it could eliminate the requirement for insurers to cover the full cost of services such as birth control, vaccines and mental health screenings.
The challengers are now seeking to reintroduce some of the arguments that the 5th Circuit rejected in their appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a petition filed in September, the Justice Department argued that the task force’s decade of coverage recommendations are legal and should be upheld. They warn that a rollback would jeopardize healthcare protections for millions of Americans.
The timing of the Supreme Court’s action, coupled with President-elect Donald Trump’s November victory, raises questions about whether his incoming administration will support the Biden administration’s position or opt not to defend the panels that set coverage requirements under the ACA, which Trump has criticized. If Trump’s Justice Department does not defend the task force, the high court may appoint a different lawyer to do so.
The case is likely to be heard in March or April. While awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision, both the federal government and the challengers have been operating under a compromise. “Obamacare’s” insurance requirements remain in place nationwide, but the government cannot enforce them against the plaintiffs in the Texas case.
Supreme Court justices express concern about ‘secret evidence’ in TikTok case
Two Supreme Court justices expressed concern about redacted evidence the government presented in the TikTok case, which attorneys for the app were not able to review. According to an attorney representing TikTok users, the evidence is classified and a lower court agreed to make its decision solely based on the public record.
“I’m concerned about the government’s attempt to lodge secret evidence in this case without providing any mechanism for opposing counsel to review it,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said. “I noted that there are mechanisms to read in counsel and that other countries, including our allies, often do that.”
The subject was first raised when Gorsuch asked the attorney representing TikTok a question that he could not answer.
“Well, Your Honor, the problem there is everything that follows what you just read is redacted, and so I don’t know what it says,” Noel Francisco of Jones Day, which represents TikTok, said.
Gorsuch later said the government has made an increased number of appeals to secret evidence in recent years and therefore it’s something Congress should pay attention to.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar made reference to a sealed appendix while she was making her case before the justices. She never said exactly what it contained, she gave a brief overview and urged the justices to read it.
“If you look at that information, it was a wealth of data about Americans that was going to have to go back to China in order for the platform to just continue its basic operations,” Prelogar said.
Prelogar went on to explain that there was factual evidence to show that even when the company said it walled off its U.S. data from China, employees at TikTok’s parent company in China surveilled U.S. journalists in an attempt to learn who was leaking information from inside the company.
“You get to look at it, but your friends on the other side don’t get to look at it,” Chief Justice John Roberts responded to Prelogar. “That doesn’t seem fair.”
“That’s the sealed appendix, Mr. Chief Justice,” Pregolar responded. “So it’s their information. They can look at it. It’s just under seal to protect their proprietary business information.”
Supreme Court casts serious doubt on TikTok’s free speech arguments
Supreme Court justices cast serious doubt on TikTok’s free speech arguments in a case that will decide the future of an app that is used by 170 million Americans. TikTok is fighting a law passed by Congress last year that requires its parent company to sell the app or be prohibited from operating in the United States.
The justices were skeptical from the very beginning, when Justice Clarence Thomas asked the app’s lawyers, “What is TikTok’s speech?”
The attorneys argued their speech is their algorithm, which suggests content for users based on their personal traits, preferences and consumption habits. Thomas responded by saying they are converting the restriction on ByteDance’s ownership of the app as TikTok’s speech.
Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that the free speech argument does not address Congress’ stated intention for passing the law.
“It seems to me that you’re ignoring the major concern here of Congress which was Chinese manipulation of the content and acquisition and harvesting of the content,” Roberts said.
“I don’t think you are supposed to ignore that at all, but I also don’t think that it changes the analysis,” said Noel John Francisco of Jones Day, which represents TikTok.
“I don’t know if it’s directly affecting the company’s speech or the speech of third parties,” Roberts said.
The law is often described as a TikTok ban, although that’s not technically accurate. The law prohibits distributing, maintaining or providing internet hosting services for an app that’s under the control of a foreign adversary. In this case, the app is TikTok, which is owned by ByteDance, a company based in China, the foreign adversary.
If ByteDance sold the app to an American company, TikTok would be allowed to operate in the United States exactly as it does today.
“TikTok can continue to operate on its own algorithm, on its own terms, as long as it’s not associated with ByteDance. So isn’t this really just all about association?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson proposed to TikTok’s attorneys.
Jackson then cited arguments from government attorneys who said the real problem is foreign adversaries manipulating content that is shown to Americans.
“Are you saying those are not compelling government interests?” Jackson asked.
“I am 100% saying that content manipulation is not just not a compelling governmental interest, it is an impermissible governmental interest,” Francisco said.
Arguing on behalf of the federal government, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said the law has a “laser-like focus” on the national security threat.
“No one disputes that the [People’s Republic of China] seeks to undermine U.S. interests by amassing vast quantities of sensitive data about Americans, and by engaging in covert influence operations,” Prelogar said. “And no one disputes that the PRC pursues those goals by compelling companies like ByteDance to secretly turn over data and carry out PRC directives.”
Those realities mean that the Chinese government could weaponize TikTok at any time to harm the United States.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar
The justices also pointed out holes in the government’s case, particularly the argument that content manipulation would be covert.
“If you just mean what’s covert is the fact that there’s China behind it, I mean, honestly, really, like everybody does know now that there’s China behind it,” Justice Elena Kagan said.
Justice Gorsuch questioned Prelogar’s reasoning that manipulated content could be harmful.
“If that’s true, then wouldn’t that be true for all social media companies for all content,” Justice Gorsuch asked.
If the TikTok ban takes effect Jan. 19, current users will still have the app on their phone and will likely be able to use it.
The law prohibits new downloads and updates. So it should keep working for current users until they update their phone, which will make it no longer compatible with the phone’s operating system, at which point it will stop working.
Appeals court allows release of election interference case report
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on President-elect Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case is one step closer to being made public after a federal appeals court’s ruling Thursday, Jan. 9. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit rejected a bid to block the release but kept in place the judge’s order for a three-day delay, giving time for additional appeals.
That means Trump could seek the Supreme Court’s intervention in the matter.
Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges, and the election interference case was eventually dismissed following his victory in November’s presidential election due to a Justice Department policy that forbids the prosecution of a sitting president.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has said he plans to release the report to the public once he is permitted to do so. In response, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement Thursday night it’s time for Garland and President Joe Biden to “do the right thing and put a final stop to the political weaponization of our justice system.”
At least 10 dead as major wildfires continue to burn in Los Angeles area
The death toll rises as the onslaught of fires continues in Southern California, destroying complete neighborhoods. And President-elect Donald Trump will be sentenced for his conviction in the New York hush money case after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a bid to stop the proceeding. These stories and more highlight your Unbiased Updates for Friday, Jan. 10, 2025.
Death toll rises as wildfires continue to burn in Los Angeles area
Flames have destroyed entire neighborhoods, obliterating 10,000 homes and buildings between the Palisades and Eaton Fires alone. Firefighters made some progress as the Santa Ana winds weakened, but wind and dry conditions are expected to continue through the weekend. This will make it difficult for crews to battle the flames.
The biggest and most destructive fire in Pacific Palisades now spans nearly 20,000 acres, which is more than 30 square miles and is only 6% contained.
Nearly 180,000 people in Los Angeles County are under evacuation orders and another 200,000 are on standby to leave their homes if necessary. The wildfires and strong winds fueling them have led to mass power outages.
Entire stretches of Pacific Ocean beachfront property along Malibu have been charred, as well as homes and neighborhoods up and down the Pacific Coast Highway.
The latest fire to break out, the Kenneth Fire, sparked Thursday afternoon, Jan. 9, in the Woodland Hills area of Los Angeles, near Calabasas. That fire spans 1,000 acres and is 35% contained, according to CalFire’s last update. Police arrested one man on suspicion of arson in connection with that fire.
It’s not just those in the fires’ paths in danger. Polluted air poses a threat even to those far away.
Supreme Court rejects Trump’s bid to halt sentencing in hush money case
Trump’s sentencing on 34 felony charges of falsifying business records to cover up a payment to porn star Stormy Daniels will proceed as planned.
The judge overseeing the case, Juan Merchan, said earlier this month he would not sentence the president-elect to prison time, saying incarceration is not an option.
Instead, the judge is expected to impose a no-penalty sentence called an unconditional discharge.
Trump vowed to appeal his conviction, claiming evidence and testimony was admitted that implicated his duties as president during his first term. The Supreme Court ruled over the summer presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for some official acts.
Appeals court allows release of election interference case report
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit rejected a bid to block the release but kept in place the judge’s order for a three-day delay, giving time for additional appeals. That means Trump could seek the Supreme Court’s intervention in the matter.
Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges, and the election interference case was eventually dismissed following his victory in November’s presidential election due to a Justice Department policy that forbids the prosecution of a sitting president.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said he plans to release the report to the public once he is permitted to do so. In response, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said Thursday night that it’s time for Garland and President Joe Biden to “do the right thing and put a final stop to the political weaponization of our justice system.”
Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in TikTok ban case
With less than two weeks until a ban on the social media app TikTok is slated to take effect, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments against the legislation Friday, Jan. 10. TikTok looks to show the justices that, despite claims from the federal government, it is not a national security threat to the U.S.
It is unclear when the court will deliver its ruling.
TikTok faces a nationwide ban in the U.S. that is expected to go into effect on Jan. 19, impacting roughly 115 million monthly users. That is unless its Chinese parent company ByteDance sells the platform, as required by the law signed by President Joe Biden last year, or SCOTUS rules in favor of TikTok’s position that the law is unconstitutional.
Supporters of the ban believe the app allows China to access vast amounts of data from Americans and possibly influence public opinion in the U.S.
Trump opposes the ban and has met with TikTok’s CEO in recent weeks.
Macy’s to close 66 stores
Macy’s confirmed it will close 66 stores across the U.S. The department store chain said Thursday that the move is part of its “bold new chapter” strategy, which was announced in February of last year. The strategy will see the closure of approximately 150 underperforming stores, or about a third of its locations, over a three-year period.
Tony Spring, the retailer’s chairman and CEO, said that while “closing any store is never easy,” this will allow the company to focus its “resources and prioritize investments” in its other locations.
Macy’s told Axios clearance sales will begin this month and run for up to 12 weeks.
Friends, family remember President Jimmy Carter at state funeral in Washington
Family, friends and fellow lawmakers honored former President Jimmy Carter on Thursday, a National Day of Mourning, during a state funeral in Washington, D.C. All five surviving presidents attended the service at the National Cathedral.
President Joe Biden, who declared Thursday a National Day of Mourning, delivered a eulogy for his late friend.
“Jimmy Carter’s friendship taught me and through his life taught me the strength of character is more than title or the power we hold. It’s a strength to understand that everyone should be treated with dignity. Respect that everyone, and I mean everyone, deserves an even shot, not a guarantee, but just a shot. You know, we have an obligation to give hate no safe harbor. And to stand up to — my dad used to say was the greatest sin of all — the abuse of power. That’s not about being perfect as none of us are perfect. We’re all fallible. But it’s about asking ourselves ‘Are we striving to do things, the right things? What value, what are the values that animate our spirit? Do we operate from fear or hope, ego or generosity? Do we show grace? Do we keep the faith when it’s most tested?’ Or keeping the faith with the best of humankind and the best of America is a story, in my view, from my perspective, of Jimmy Carter’s life.”
Carter’s grandchildren also spoke about their late grandfather.
“They were small-town people who never forgot who they were and where they were from no matter what happened in their lives,” Jason Carter said. “But I recognize that we are not here because he was just a regular guy. As you’ve heard from the other speakers, his political life and his presidency for me was not just ahead of its time, it was prophetic. He had the courage and strength to stick to his principles, even when they were politically unpopular.”
Following a private funeral in his hometown of Plains, Georgia, Carter was laid to rest next to his wife of 77 years, Rosalynn.
SCOTUS denies Trump’s request to delay Friday’s sentencing in New York
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied President-elect Donald Trump’s emergency petition to block his upcoming sentencing in the criminal case New York v. Trump, often called his hush money case. The decision clears the way for Trump’s sentencing to proceed as scheduled on Friday, Jan. 10.
Trump had asked the high court on Wednesday to halt the sentencing. The case stems from a conviction for falsifying business records related to payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated, “First, alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge after a brief virtual hearing.”
Trump responded to the high court’s ruling Thursday evening from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. He said he thought it was a fair decision and later thanked the justices on Truth Social “for their time and effort.”
Trump is expected to appear virtually for Friday morning’s sentencing hearing. Judge Juan Merchan, who presides over the case, has already indicated that Trump will not be sentenced to prison time. Instead, he will receive a sentence of “unconditional discharge,” meaning no punishment will be imposed.
Trump has maintained his innocence in the case, and his lawyers have already appealed the ruling.
As the future of TikTok hangs in the balance, creators are flocking to Lemon8, an increasingly popular social media app. The app has been gaining attention for its unique blend of features.
Lemon8 combines TikTok’s short-form videos with Pinterest and Instagram-like feeds. Owned by ByteDance, the same parent company as TikTok, Lemon8 is often referred to as TikTok’s sister app.
Lemon8 focuses on visual aesthetics and personal storytelling. Popular content categories include fashion, beauty, fitness, travel and food. The platform is designed to foster a sense of community while encouraging creativity.
ByteDance ownership raises concerns
However, Lemon8’s future is not guaranteed. Since ByteDance owns both Lemon8 and TikTok, the app could face regulatory scrutiny similar to TikTok’s if the U.S. government increases pressure on the company.
Another app impacted by the ongoing ByteDance controversy is CapCut. The all-in-one video editing and graphic design tool is popular among social media creators. CapCut offers features like green screens, transitions and video templates, making it easy to create polished content.
Its seamless integration with TikTok and other platforms has made it a go-to tool for content creators.
TikTok ban deadline approaches
President-elect Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to block a law passed last April calling for a potential ban on the massively popular social media app. For TikTok to avoid the ban, ByteDance must divest its U.S. operations. However, if that doesn’t happen, the ban could take effect as soon as Jan. 19.
Idaho representative wants Supreme Court to end same-sex marriage
Idaho Republican state Rep. Heather Scott called on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its landmark 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Scott made the announcement just days into the state’s 2025 legislative session.
Scott, who represents Idaho’s 1st District, introduced a resolution on Tuesday. Jan. 7, asking the state House committee to challenge the high court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established marriage equality for same-sex couples.
The resolution claims the Supreme Court’s ruling conflicts with Idaho’s Constitution, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Scott said the court’s decision was an “illegitimate overreach” and ultimately bypassed the democratic process.
The resolution says, “Court rulings are not laws, and only legislatures elected by the people may pass laws.”
The measure, which passed in committee, has no legal weight but rather serves as a symbol to reassert the state’s traditional definition of marriage. If passed by both legislative chambers, the resolution would be sent to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Idaho Democratic Party leaders quickly criticized Scott’s proposal, calling it a “sad distraction” and argued the government should not interfere with personal relationships between two consenting adults.
In a statement, they said, “This is yet another example of the extreme wing of the Republican Party ginning up divisive social issues in order to create problems where none exist.”
In 2014, Idaho’s District Court ruled the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
The decision by the federal judge allowed legal recognition of same-sex unions.
It strikes down the 2006 constitutional amendment that previously prohibited such marriages.