The California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday to uphold Proposition 22, which allows rideshare drivers like those from Uber and Lyft to remain contract employees rather than as employees with benefits.
The rule gave some limited benefits to contract employees but allowed them to remain employed on a contract basis.
A lower court had ruled the law unconstitutional, which would have required major changes to the way rideshare and other companies that use gig workers operate.
The ruling was expected after the justices seemed to side with proponents of Prop 22 during a ruling in May.
The two sides have been fighting over the rule for years, but it has remained in effect during the fight.
Companies including Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other gig-based companies had threatened to shut down their operations in California if Prop 22 was overturned.
That will not be necessary now.
Gig work is attractive for many who need a flexible schedule and those who need or want to work part-time. It can work well for students, parents caring for young children, and disabled workers who have times when their health does not allow them to work.
"Today marks an historic moment and a landmark victory," general counsel for Instacart Morgan Fong said in a statement Thursday. "Instacart shoppers consistently and overwhelmingly tell us they value their flexibility and independence. The Court’s decision preserves access to the flexible earnings opportunities they want and the important benefits provided under Prop. 22."
More than 1 million people drive for app-based companies in California and would have been impacted by striking down the rule.
The companies spent $200 million campaigning for Prop 22 before it's passing.
Uber spokesperson Zahid Arab said the decision "affirm[ed] the will of the nearly 10 million Californians who voted to deliver historic benefits and protections to drivers, while protecting their independence."
Arab referred to the original vote on Prop 22, which was on the ballot in 2020.
Opponents of the rule tried to argue that the state constitution gave the legislature the exclusive right to determine rules for worker's compensation in the state, but the judge rejected that argument.
The news that former President Donald Trump was the victim of an assassination has dominated the headlines for two straight weeks, and finally, there have been details about the shooter from those who lived nearby.
Additionally, there has been no decrease in the level of national interest in the gunman who came dangerously close to taking the life of the former president.
Reporters who are sifting through public material have spoken to some of the individuals who knew the shooter in their personal lives.
After the shooting, which took place in Pennsylvania, residents of the neighborhood where the 20-year-old lives are still trying to come to terms with the "evil" that was lurking just down the street, as reported by Fox News.
"That's sheer fear. If [Trump] had his head turned, he would've had his brains blown out, and that was manufactured around the corner from my house," said a neighbor who lives about the same distance from the Crooks home that the shooter was from the president when Crooks opened fire.
"There was such evil around the corner," she said Tuesday. "We're always going to have a scar from what happened and how close to us [it was]."
During the course of the summer, another woman who runs in the neighborhood on a daily basis reported that she repeatedly observed Crooks in the peaceful area in their neighborhood.
According to the neighbor, when she was trying to make friendly exchanges with the young man and garner his attention, he would "look up as though nobody had been passing him," despite the fact that she was making an effort to "look over and smile and say hello."
Journalists reported that the woman was left in a state of amazement after hearing the news of the incident that took place only forty minutes from her residence.
After more details flooded the news, the neighbor realized the perpetrator lived much closer to her home than she thought, making her life even more "surreal".
"When I first thought about the shooter being in Butler, I thought, 'Wow, that's in my backyard.' It ended up being closer. All of a sudden, it's a neighbor," she said.
The Crooks' neighbor, an elderly woman, said the gunman helped her with housework but hadn't talked much.
"I would ask Tom, ‘Would you rake the leaves? Could you shovel the driveway?’ If I saw their mail, I'd pick it up," she said. "You get shocked, but you also get mad that something like this happened."
Those who lived nearest to the Crooks residence on Milford Drive were apparently evacuated by the police for around twenty-four hours after the shooting, as it was recounted by the eyewitness.
However, they were not provided with any precise directions on where they should go, and the only reason they were instructed to evacuate was because of an inquiry into a device.
Investigators had conversations with members of the Crook family a minimum of three times during the previous week. One of these conversations took place at their residence, which was visited several days after the shooting and lasted for at least an hour.
National interest in the shooter who almost took the life of former President Donald Trump has not yet diminished, and reporters parsing through public information have spoken to some of those who knew the shooter in life.
Residents of the 20-year-old's neighborhood are still trying to come to terms with the "evil" that was lurking just down the street after the shooting at a Trump rally in Pennsylvania, which nearly assassinated former president Trump and killed firefighter Corey Comperatore, occurred just over a week ago, as Fox News reported.
"That's sheer fear. If [Trump] had his head turned, he would've had his brains blown out, and that was manufactured around the corner from my house," said a neighbor who lives about the same distance from the Crooks home that the shooter was from the president when Crooks opened fire.
"There was such evil around the corner," she said Tuesday. "We're always going to have a scar from what happened and how close to us [it was]."
Another woman who runs in the neighborhood on a regular basis stated that she saw Crooks in the calm area on multiple occasions over the course of the summer in their neighborhood.
Despite her efforts to "look over and smile and say hello," he would "look up as though nobody had been passing him," when she was trying to get his attention.
The news of the shooting that occurred barely forty minutes away from her home reportedly left that woman in a state of disbelief.
According to the woman, her life began to feel even more "surreal" after more details flooded the news, and she became aware that the perpetrator lived much closer to her own home than she originally thought.
"When I first thought about the shooter being in Butler, I thought, 'Wow, that's in my backyard.' It ended up being closer. All of a sudden, it's a neighbor," she said.
According to an old woman who lived down the street from the Crooks, the gunman helped her out with housework on a regular basis but they hadn't had many conversations.
"I would ask Tom, ‘Would you rake the leaves? Could you shovel the driveway?’ If I saw their mail, I'd pick it up," she said. "You get shocked, but you also get mad that something like this happened."
Those who lived closest to the Crooks residence on Milford Drive were reportedly evacuated by the police for a period of twenty-four hours after the shooting, according to the witnesses.
It was only because of a bomb investigation that they were advised to evacuate, but they were not given any specific instructions on where to go.
At least three times in the previous week, investigators spoke with members of the Crook family, including a visit to their home days after the shooting for at least an hour.
Lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed paperwork with the appeals court in New York asking for the $500 million civil fraud verdict against him to be overturned because it is "egregious" and "erroneous."
Trump's main arguments against the huge civil penalty were that some of the allegations were past the statute of limitations, no one was harmed by Trump's actions, and that other businesses will leave the state if the huge fine is found to be legitimate.
The brief was 116 pages long, and among other points it made was that the verdict effectively gives Attorney General Letitia James "limitless power to target anyone she desires, including her self-described political opponents."
A lot of the arguments against Judge Arthur Engoron's judgment against Trump were similar to ones he presented during the trial, but that doesn't mean the appeals court won't find them valid. Trump's lawyers called the verdict "draconian" and said it "violates centuries of New York case law."
If the court determines that Engoron ignored valid grounds for dismissal, it could upend the entire verdict and James's gleeful threats to seize his property if he doesn't pay up.
Trump posted a bond of $175 million after no bond agency would give him the full amount. If he wins the appeal, he will get it all back.
Trump is on a roll with legal victories. The Supreme Court threw a major monkey wrench into the criminal indictments against him by declaring he has immunity for all official acts and some others.
The classified documents case against him was then dropped by Judge Aileen Cannon because she determined that Special Counsel Jack Smith was illegally appointed.
The Georgia election interference case has been postponed until after the election, and the sentencing for the New York falsified business documents case has been postponed until mid-September with the judge expressing doubt about whether it could even take place because of the immunity ruling.
These cases were trumped up by Democrat prosecutors in Democrat-dominated areas, and they're all falling apart under scrutiny by courts with actual legitimacy like the Supreme Court.
The whole idea was to make Trump look like a criminal so no one would want to vote for him in November, but that has backfired spectacularly and the majority are not buying any of it.
Oral arguments in this case that was intended to hurt him financially will be in September, although it's still New York and he may not have a great chance of a fair verdict here.
Some of Trump's arguments were already considered by the same court and rejected.
He may have to go to the Supreme Court yet again for relief.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-NY) demanded in an X post on Sunday that Vice President Kamala Harris invoke the 25th Amendment on President Joe Biden after he stepped down as the Democrat nominee for president in 2024.
If Joe Biden does not have the cognitive ability to seek reelection, he does not have the cognitive ability to serve the remainder of his term. Tomorrow I will introduce a resolution calling on Kamala Harris to invoke the 25th amendment and assume the duties of acting President. pic.twitter.com/El10ourh5T
— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) July 21, 2024
"If Joe Biden does not have the cognitive ability to seek reelection, he does not have the cognitive ability to serve the remainder of his term. Tomorrow I will introduce a resolution calling on Kamala Harris to invoke the 25th amendment and assume the duties of acting President," she wrote, along with the text of her resolution.
The resolution noted that "for years it has been clear to the American people that President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was experiencing severe cognitive decline and was mentally incapable of discharging the powers and duties of his office."
She also noted that Biden's debate performance raised "new concerns" about his cognitive state.
According to Mace's logic, Biden's decision to step down from the 2024 election means he is incapable of being president until then, but is that really fair?
I mean, looking at him day after day, he clearly is not capable of doing the job as president.
But it is possible that he thinks he can handle it until January 2025, but not until January 2029.
Biden's departure will completely change the trajectory of the 2024 election.
He and most other Democrats have endorsed Harris, but she has worse approval ratings than Biden.
She would be a historic president, however, and may gain votes from women other voters who want to see the first female president who is also Black and South Asian.
Biden posted his intention to step down from his re-election bid on X, and no one has seen him since.
He said in his letter that he would explain his decision at a later date, but the detached way the announcement was made has raised questions about whether he actually knows about it, or whether his staff posted on his behalf.
He tested positive for COVID last week and is self-isolating.
A former Colorado election official has asked the Supreme Court for an emergency intervention to stop her trial on charges of leaked voting machine passwords.
Tina Peters, who served as Mesa County’s clerk and recorder during the 2020 election cycle, has been charged with giving a security company access to voting machines in 2021.
Peters has filed a request with the Supreme Court arguing that federal election protections give her immunity from the state’s prosecution and that means that the Supreme Court must prevent her trial from taking place.
In her application, she argued "An injunction stopping the state trial while this court considers this case is necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent an irreparable injury to the institutional interests of the federal government and to Ms. Peters’ right not to be subjected to state trial for executing her duty under federal law."
Peters argues that her duty is to preserve election records as Colorado’s chief election official and thus she has immunity for her actions.
The controversy began after Colorado announced it would be upgrading its election management systems after the conclusion of the 2020 presidential election.
In response to this, Peters hired Gerald Wood to help her back up Dominion voting machines as part of her duty to preserve election records. Peters was concerned about the possibility of election fraud in the 2020 election and was committed to preserving all records in the event of an investigation.
In response to her decision to hire a private entity to back up the machines, Peters was hit with a whopping seven felony counts related to attempting to influence a public servant, impersonation, and identity theft.
To accompany those felonies, Peters was also hit with misdemeanor charges of official misconduct, violating her duties, and failing to comply with the Colorado secretary of state.
She has pled not guilty to all charges and argued that the case against her is a political hitjob due to her support for former President Donald Trump and her beliefs that there were irregularities in the 2020 presidential election.
By all accounts, Peters is in dire straights and doesn't have friends in Colorado which is why she is appealing to the conservative Supreme Court that might be willing to hear her case out.
Peters argued, "Arising as it does from the Constitution’s foundational allocation of power between the federal and state governments, it is critically important that the immunity provided by the supremacy clause for federal actors contending with hostile state officials be properly applied."
Looking at the intent behind Peters's actions and the extreme response from the state of Colorado, it certainly appears that Peters is being railroaded for political reasons.
It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will pull the trigger and grant her request to sort this mess out.
J. Michael Cline, the founder of movie ticket firm Fandango, is dead after he jumped from the 20th floor at the Kimberly Hotel in Midtown Manhattan.
In a statement on Thursday from law enforcement, Cline appears to have jumped on his own and at this time there is no foul play suspected.
Cline, who was 64 years old, left behind a note saying, "So sorry. I can’t explain the pain of f— up this much. I love you all."
While this doesn't give much to go off of, we do know that Cline was an entrepreneur which means that there could have been any number of stressors that pushed him to the edge.
Cline leaves behind six children that he shared with his wife Pamela.
Cline had a long and distinguished career as he founded Fandango in 2000 and worked with that company until 2011 when he left.
Fandango was so successful that it was purchased by NBCUniversal and is now the go-to service for buying movie tickets.
The pandemic hit the company hard as the entire movie industry was shut down and theaters closed for months on end. While Cline wasn't working for Fandango at the time, it's likely he had a significant financial interest in the company that was adversely affected by the shutdowns.
Cline was well educated as he attended Cornell University and Harvard Business School and this set him up for success in his future business endeavors.
He founded the company Acumen, an outsourcer of lab operations for large hospitals, in 2010. He also founded Accolade, a vendor of health services for large employers and hospital systems, in 2007 and worked as founder and chairman through 2022.
He was deeply involved in medical services which would have benefited him greatly during the pandemic but all of this information is speculative and there is still no concrete evidence on what drove Cline to jump from the 20th floor of the Kimberly Hotel.
For now, answers on Cline's sudden suicide will have to wait as law enforcement continues their investigation into his death.
Anytime a significant figure who is as powerful as Cline suddenly dies it raises questions. It's clear he was under immense mental stress but the question is what was the exact cause of that stress.
While it could have simply been a matter of bad mental health, Cline left behind six children which indicates that it's possible there was something more to this tragedy.
An appeals court has blocked the implementation of President Joe Biden's SAVE student loan forgiveness plan while it considers the merits of a lawsuit by conservative states against the initiative.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was responding to a lawsuit against SAVE by Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma.
The suit argued that the Biden administration was "trying to impose an extraordinarily expensive and controversial policy" with the loan forgiveness and income-driven repayment options.
Federal judges in Kansas and Missouri had already blocked parts of the plan temporarily in June as other suits take place.
A total of $168.5 billion has so far been forgiven for 4.76 million borrowers.
Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told Axios in an emailed statement on Thursday that the borrowers impacted by the block would have their loans placed on an interest-free forbearance until the courts make a final decision on the plan.
Borrowers will be notified of the change, he said.
"Our administration will continue to aggressively defend the SAVE Plan," a spokesperson for the administration said.
On the same day the injunction was handed down, Biden canceled another $1.2 billion in loan debt for 35,000 public service workers using the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, which it overhauled.
The program allows firefighters, teachers, police, and employees of nonprofits to get their loans forgiven after making 10 years of payments.
Before this addition, 946,000 borrowers have had $69.2 billion forgiven through the program.
Prior to Biden's election, only 7,000 borrowers had received forgiveness in the 13 years the program was in place.
Republicans have accused Biden of buying votes with student loan forgiveness programs, and have criticized them for shifting the student loan costs to taxpayers, some of whom have not attended college, had not taken student loans, or had paid off their balances before debt forgiveness was available.
A Wall Street Journal editorial in April noted that "the best way to buy votes is with other people's money," and the Biden administration is doing exactly that with the money you and I pay in taxes.
Following the breakdown in the most basic of security defenses, much of the nation has been awaiting an explanation of the events surrounding the shooting of former President Donald Trump.
Fox News reported that The Department of Homeland Security's inspector general has moved forward with an investigation into the Secret Service's security decisions surrounding the former President Trump's rally in Pennsylvania over the weekend.
After the shooter was identified, it was discovered that the shooter was an amateur. It was also found that his perch was one where such an amateur could pull off a kill shot, and was reportedly not within the Secret Service's perimeter.
Questions about how that could be considered sufficient security have coursed through a nation irate at the idea of what could have been the result of Saturday's shooting.
The agency stated in a brief notice posted to the inspector general's website that the purpose of the investigation is to "Evaluate the United States Secret Service’s (Secret Service) process for securing former President Trump’s July 13, 2024 campaign event," which was the site of an assassination attempt against Trump.
No specific date was offered for the start of the investigation. The notice was one of numerous ongoing cases that the inspector general's office is currently investigating.
An independent assessment of the security at the rally had already been directed by President Biden.
On Wednesday, there are still questions regarding the manner in which Thomas Matthew Crooks, the 20-year-old shooter, was able to ascend a building and fire at Trump and rally attendees in Butler, Pennsylvania.
In a Tuesday interview, Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle asserted that her agency was "solely responsible" for the security measures in the area.
Despite the fact that other events in the state necessitated Secret Service protection, Cheatle informed CNN that no assets from the rally were diverted on the day of Trump's shooting.
"At that particular site, we divided up areas of responsibility, but the Secret Service is totally responsible for the design and implementation and the execution of the site," Cheatle said.
Separately, Cheatle told ABC News that the agency knew about the building's security flaws when the shooter positioned himself to shoot at Trump.
"That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there's a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof," the director said.
"And so, you know, the decision was made to secure the building, from inside."
In the latest example of aggressive pre-digestion of infomration by mainstream media, the editor of an unnamed major news outlet is calling one of the iconic photos of former President Donald Trump "propaganda," according to Fox News.
The news broke that the former president was shot in the side of the head almost simultaneous to the historic photos hitting the internet, thanks to the magic cellular service and other forms of communications at the site of the attack.
While no one is claiming that the photo is not entirely accurate and a correct depiction of the events of the day, one major editor doesn't want a photo of Trump with blood on his face, looking defiant, to make the rounds any longer.
According to a source, an unnamed picture editor at a major news organization believes that it is "dangerous" for the media to promote the historic photo.
The photo in question was of former President Trump standing up after the assassination attempt that occurred on Saturday. The photo editor also believed that the media group he works for would be providing "free PR" for the Trump campaign.
According to an Axios media trend assessment published on Tuesday, the iconic image's "overuse" can "pose risks."
The report cites unnamed photographers who allegedly told the outlet that promoting the viral photos could be a type of "photoganda" because the Trump campaign will make use of them to "further their agenda, despite the photographers' intent of capturing a news event."
Trump was battered to the ground at a rally on Saturday when a gunshot grazed his right ear, but the photograph recorded his defiant reaction seconds later.
As the Secret Service escorted the former president off the platform, an American flag flew over his head, and blood splattered across his face, he raised a fist to the cheering crowd.
Photojournalist Evan Vucci of the Associated Press shot the iconic shot that quickly became the talk of the internet and made headlines across the world.
A picture editor and photographer "from a major news outlet" reportedly told Axios that the media shouldn't use the shot "despite how good it is" because it would put the former president in a positive light.
The Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Vucci has covered thousands of events like this for the AP since 2003. He told Fox News Digital that he knew he was witnessing a historic moment as shots were fired at the former president.
Vucci told Fox News Digital on Monday from Milwaukee, where he was preparing to photograph the Republican National Convention, "I was literally just thinking about doing the best possible job I could, because I knew that this was a moment in American history that I had to be at the top of my game for."
"The amount that publications have been using Evan's photo is kind of free PR for Trump in a way, and it's dangerous for media organizations to keep sharing that photo despite how good it is," the editor told the outlet.
The shot after the shot, which has been hailed as instantly iconic, is expected to appear on the cover of Time magazine's upcoming print edition.
One of the most divisive, admired, and hated political figures in American history, Trump, could be eternally altered in the eyes of some, according to some analysts.
According to Fox News, The Washington Post’s art critic, Phillip Kennicott, called it "a photograph that could change America forever."