

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion before the
Wisconsin Supreme Court today on behalf of five same-sex couples asking
that the couples be allowed to participate in a lawsuit that will
decide whether the state's newly enacted domestic partner law violates
Wisconsin's anti-gay marriage amendment. Anti-gay activists have asked
the Wisconsin Supreme Court to strike down the domestic partner law as
inconsistent with the marriage amendment.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion before the
Wisconsin Supreme Court today on behalf of five same-sex couples asking
that the couples be allowed to participate in a lawsuit that will
decide whether the state's newly enacted domestic partner law violates
Wisconsin's anti-gay marriage amendment. Anti-gay activists have asked
the Wisconsin Supreme Court to strike down the domestic partner law as
inconsistent with the marriage amendment. The couples also ask the
Court to reject the petition and send the case to a trial court so that
evidence can be presented to show that the domestic partner law does
not violate the anti-gay marriage amendment that passed in 2006.
"While the domestic partner law falls far short of marriage, we were
grateful when it passed that we would no longer have to worry about
being able to visit each other in the hospital," said Jayne Dunnum who,
along with her partner of 17 years, Robin Timm, registered to become
domestic partners when the law went into effect this summer. "But with
this lawsuit those fears are back, and we'd like the opportunity to
explain to the courts how this affects us."
According to the motion filed by the ACLU, the five same-sex couples
meet all the legal requirements for becoming a party to the litigation
and would suffer harm if the court overturns the domestic partner law.
"We're hopeful that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will recognize that
lesbian and gay couples have the most at stake in this lawsuit and
deserve their day in court," said Larry DuPuis, Legal Director of the
ACLU of Wisconsin. "Only same-sex couples can describe what it's like
to fear not being able to visit a partner in the hospital or being left
with nothing when a partner dies without a will. And only same-sex
couples can explain what it means to be shut out of marriage and have
to accept a poorly understood second-class status as domestic partners
with 43 legal protections versus more than 200 that come with
marriage."
The anti-gay activists who are seeking to take away the legal
protections for registered domestic partners have claimed that they
need a speedy resolution and are entitled to go directly to the
Wisconsin Supreme Court because the modest legal protections granted to
same-sex couples through the law somehow affect the marriages of
straight couples. Rather incredulously, they also claim that it would
be in the best interest of lesbian and gay couples to have a speedy
resolution even though they are asking the court to strip domestic
partners of all legal protections.
According to the ACLU, there are important factual issues in the
case, such as the many ways in which domestic partnership differs from
marriage, that call for the kind of testimony that same-sex couples can
provide to the Court. To consider this important evidence, the Court
should refuse to accept this case directly but instead allow a circuit
court to develop the factual record.
During the political campaign for the anti-gay marriage amendment
that is the basis for this lawsuit, these same anti-gay activists told
the voters that domestic partner benefits would not be affected by the
amendment and that the state would be allowed to pass a law giving
same-sex couples some legal protections.
"The anti-gay activists misled the voters into passing the amendment
by saying that it would not affect the rights of domestic partners.
Then they tried to prevent the legislature from providing modest legal
protections for same-sex couples. And soon after the bill went into
effect, they brought a lawsuit to take those protections away, based on
the amendment that they said would not affect such rights" said John
Knight, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project. "It's
incredible the lengths they will go to deny committed couples basic
protections for their families."
The same-sex couples asking to be allowed into the lawsuit include:
Jayne Dunnum and Robin Timm from Plattsville, WI, have been
together for 17 years. After Timm was injured on their farm and had to
be rushed to the emergency room, they worry about being able to visit
each other in the hospital and are hoping the domestic partner law will
put an end to these worries.
Carol Schumacher and Virginia Wolf from Eau Claire, WI, have
been together for 34 years. As they enter their senior years, the
domestic partner law would ease their worries about being shut out of
conversations about each other's medical care and other end-of-life
decisions and guarantee that they are not barred from sharing a room if
they end up in a nursing home.
Wendy and Mary Woodruff from Milwaukee, WI, have been
together for 12 years. As a minister for the Metropolitan Community
Church, Rev. Wendy Woodruff has had to console a congregant who lost
everything, including her home and furniture, when her partner was
killed and the partner's relatives claimed their entire estate. They
fear the same thing would happen to them without the inheritance
protections of the domestic partner law.
Judith Trampf and Katy Heyning from Madison, WI, celebrated
their 20th Anniversary this summer. A few years back, Heyning had a
seizure that left her unable to drive for six months. Unable to take
family leave, Trampf had to use her vacation time to drive Katy to
doctor's appointments and to and from work. Under the domestic partner
law, the couple would finally gain access to family leave protection.
Diane Schermann and Missy Collins from Eau Claire, WI, have
known each other for 10 years and have been a couple for five. The
couple is raising seven children, including Diane's two children from a
previous marriage, a new baby that Missy gave birth to through in vitro
fertilization and four foster children, two of which are relatives of
Collins. Like many couples their age, the couple has put off making
wills because of the expense. The domestic partner law would guarantee
that at least half of their joint property automatically passes to each
other.
Lambda Legal also filed papers today to intervene in the Appling v. Doyle
case on behalf of Fair Wisconsin, the statewide equality organization,
and its members. Lambda Legal, like the ACLU, says domestic
partnerships and marriages are not "substantially similar."
Linda Hansen, David Froiland, Jason Plowman, Daniel Manna and David
Goroff of Foley & Lardner, LLP are assisting ACLU attorneys DuPuis
and Knight in representing the couples.
Additional information about the ACLU's motion, including bios and
photographs of the couples and the legal documents filed today, is
available at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/41068res20090922.html.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666Alito's order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the new congressional maps on the basis that they were "racially gerrymandered."
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Friday temporarily restored a controversial Trump-backed Texas redistricting plan that could grant Republicans an extra five seats in the House of Representatives.
Alito's order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the redrawn congressional maps on the basis that they were "racially gerrymandered."
"It is ordered that the November 18, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. 3:21-cv-259 is hereby administratively stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court," Alito wrote around one hour after Texas appealed the district court's ruling.
Alito was the justice to issue the stay because he handles emergency requests from the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas.
"Well, the Supreme Court fucked us yet again."
Friday's ruling is not the final say on the fate of Texas' new maps, but allows the state to continue preparations for the 2026 midterm elections under the redistricting while the full Supreme Court considers the case. Texas has asked for a ruling by December 1, one week before the December 8 filling deadline for congressional races. The state is set to hold primary elections in March.
Alito has asked the civil rights organizations fighting to block the maps for more materials by Monday, November 24—a sign, according to Politico, that he planned to put the case "on a fast-track."
Texas was the first state to heed President Donald Trump's request to redraw its maps in order to give Republicans an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections and attempt to prevent the Democrats from retaking the House. In response, Missouri and North Carolina also redrew their maps to give the GOP one extra seat each. However, California voters then retaliated by approving a proposition to redistrict in a way that would see an additional five Democrats elected. All of these plans now face legal challenges.
As the fight for control of the House continues through maps and courts, Texas Democratic activists haven't given up on voters.
"Well, the Supreme Court fucked us yet again," said Allison Campolo, who chairs the Democratic Party of Tarrant County, Texas, on social media Friday, "but—We in Texas know the cavalry doesn't come for us. We save ourselves."
"100 people came out to our party headquarters tonight and we were absolutely PACKED with candidates running for every seat and bench from the top to the bottom of the ticket," Campolo continued. "Texas Democrats are here to save our county, our state, and our country. We'll be seeing you at the polls."
"I feel very confident that he can do a very good job," Trump said of Mamdani after their White House meeting. "I think he is going to surprise some conservative people, actually.”
While Gothamist's characterization of Friday's White House meeting between President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani as "a surprising bromance" was likely an overstretch, the far-right US leader did offer copious praise for the democratic socialist during their amiable encounter.
Asked by a reporter if he would feel comfortable living in New York City under Mamdani, Trump—with Mamdani standing beside him in the Oval Office—replied: “Yeah, I would. I really would. Especially after the meeting."
“We agree on a lot more than I thought," the president continued. "I want him to do a great job, and we’ll help him do a great job.”
Asked by another reporter if he was standing next to a “jihadist"—as Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) called Mamdani over his support for Palestinian liberation and opposition to Israel's genocide in Gaza—Trump said, “No... I met with a man who is a very rational person."
"I met with a man who really wants to see New York be great again," the president added. "I think you’re going to have, hopefully, a really great mayor. The better he does, the happier I am. And we’re going to be helping him to make everybody’s dream come true. Having a strong and very safe New York.”
Comparing Mamdani to another prominent democratic socialist, who represents Vermont in the US Senate, Trump added that "Bernie Sanders and I agreed on much more than people thought."
The pair reportedly discussed contentious issues including Trump's anti-immigrant crackdown and federal invasion of several US cities including Los Angeles; Washington, DC; Portland, Maine; Chicago; and Memphis.
However, they also discussed common-ground issues including the affordability crisis, which has hit New Yorkers particularly hard.
"It was a productive meeting focused on a place of shared admiration and love, which is New York City and the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers," Mamdani told reporters.
Friday's friendly meeting was a stark departure from previous acrimonious exchanges between Trump and Mamdani. The president has called Mamdani a "communist lunatic” and a “total nut job," and repeatedly threatened to cut off federal funding to the nation's largest city if the leftist was elected. Trump also threatened to arrest Mamdani after the then-mayoral candidate said he would refuse to cooperate with his administration's mass deportation campaign.
Asked Friday about calling Mamdani a communist, Trump said: “He’s got views that are a little out there, but who knows. I mean, we’re going to see what works. He’s going to change, also. I changed a lot."
"I feel very confident that he can do a very good job," the president added. "I think he is going to surprise some conservative people, actually.”
For his part, Mamdani has called Trump a "despot" and the embodiment of New York City's problems, decried his "authoritarian" administration, and called himself the president's "worst nightmare." He also called Trump a "fascist" on numerous occasions.
"I've been called much worse than a despot,” Trump quipped Friday.
After their meeting, a reporter asked Mamdani if he still thought Trump is a fascist. The president interrupted as Mamdani began to respond, patting him on the arm and saying, “That’s OK, you can just say yes."
Mamdani did not compliment Trump nearly as much as the president—who posted several photos in which he posed with the mayor-elect before a portrait of President Franklin D. Roosevelt—lavished praise upon him.
Let’s be clear. @zohrankmamdani.bsky.social got Trump so charmed that Trump posted two photos of the two of them with Franklin Roosevelt’s portrait behind them AND one of just Mamdani and FDR’s portrait.
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) November 21, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Mamdani called the meeting "cordial and productive," and said that he looked forward to working with Trump to "improve life in New York," highlighting their agreement on issues like housing affordability, food and energy costs, and reducing the cost of living—issues which he said motivated voters to support both men.
Observers expressed surprise over the affable meeting, with Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—one of Trump's staunchest congressional critics—asking on social media, "What the heck just happened?"
The meeting proceeded far differently than previewed by Fox News:
Numerous far-right figures were furious at Trump's genial reception of a man they've spent much of the year demonizing. Leftists mocked their angst, with the popular X account @_iamblakeley asking, "Has anyone checked in on Laura Loomer?"
The rabidly Islamophobic conspiracy theorist and staunch Trump loyalist was, in fact, having a social media meltdown.
Referring to the Republican congresswoman from Georgia who made a surprise retirement announcement on Friday, journalist Aaron Rupar wrote on Bluesky that "Trump feuding with Marjorie Taylor Greene but being in love with Zohran Mamdani was not on my November 2025 bingo card."
Some social media users noted that Trump offered Mamdani a more ringing endorsement than even some prominent Democrats.
"Trump is being nicer to Mamdani than Democratic leadership," journalist Ken Klippenstein wrote on Bluesky.
Another Bluesky account posted, "Donald Trump endorsed Zohran Mamdani before Chuck Schumer," a reference to the Senate majority leader—who never endorsed his party's nominee to lead the city they both call home.
Corporate Democrats' disdain for leftist candidates and ideology was on full display Thursday as the House of Representatives voted 285-98 in favor of a resolution "denouncing the horrors of socialism" in "all its forms," presumably including the variety that has been a dominant political force across Western democracies since shortly after World War II.
Eighty-six Democrats joined their Republican colleagues in voting for the resolution. The vote took place as Mamdani was en route to the White House.
Rep. Eugene Vindman—who was a White House national security lawyer at the time of the 2019 call—said it “would shock people if they knew what was said.”
The widow of Jamal Khashoggi on Friday joined Democratic members of Congress in urging President Donald Trump to release the transcript of a phone conversation between the US leader and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman following the journalist's 2018 kidnapping and gruesome murder by Saudi operatives.
Speaking outside the US Capitol in Washington, DC flanked by Democratic members of Congress including Reps. Eugene Vindman of Virginia and Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Hanan Elatr Khashoggi said she is seeking the lawmakers' help "to get the contents of the conversation between President Trump and MBS to get the truth."
“Try as much as you can to save the democratic freedom of America," Khashoggi implored the audience at the gathering. "Do not be a copy of the Middle East dictator countries. We look to America as our role model of modern civilization. Please maintain it.”
Jamal Khashoggi's widow, Hanan Elatr Khashoggi: "I'm seeking the help of Congressmen Vindman and Jamie Raskin, to get the transcript of the conversation between President Trump and Crown Prince MBS to understand the truth."
[image or embed]
— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) November 21, 2025 at 8:44 AM
Vindman urged the declassification and release of what he called a "highly disturbing" 2019 call between Trump and MBS—who US intelligence agencies say ordered Khashoggi's murder—the contents of which the congressman claimed “would shock people if they knew what was said.”
At the time of the call, Vindman was serving as a lawyer on Trump's National Security Council, where his duties included reviewing presidential communications with foreign leaders.
"All week, I’ve urged the president to release this transcript," Vindman said during his remarks at Friday's press conference. "Yesterday, I sent him a letter with 37 of my colleagues demanding its release. We will continue pressing until the American people get the truth.”
"Given President Trump’s disturbing and counterfactual defense of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman this week, I felt compelled to speak up on behalf of the Khashoggi family and the country I serve," he added.
On Tuesday, Trump warmly welcomed the crown prince to the White House, calling him a "respected man," designating Saudi Arabia a major non-NATO ally, and announcing the planned sale of F-35 fighter jets to the kingdom.
Trump also threatened an ABC News reporter who attempted to ask MBS about his role in Khashoggi's murder, calling the victim "somebody that was extremely controversial" and whom "a lot of people didn’t like."
“Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen," Trump said as MBS smugly looked on, dubiously adding that the crown prince "knew nothing about it."
Responding to Trump's comments, Khashoggi's widow said during Friday's press conference that “there is no justification to kidnap [Khashoggi], torture him, to kill him, and to cut him to pieces."
"This is a terrorist act," she added.
Khashoggi—a Washington Post columnist and permanent US resident—vanished in October 2018 while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Turkish officials said he was attacked, suffocated to death, and dismembered with a bone saw inside the consular compound. One Turkish investigator said Khashoggi was tortured in front the Saudi consul-general and dismembered while he was still alive.
Saudi officials initially denied that Khashoggi died in the consulate but later confirmed his death, claiming it resulted from a “fistfight” gone wrong. In 2019, a Saudi court sentenced five people to death and three others to prison terms in connection with Khashoggi’s murder. However, the death sentences were later commuted.
The Central Intelligence Agency concluded that MBS ordered Khashoggi's murder. Saudi officials refuted the CIA's findings. Trump also expressed skepticism at his own intelligence agency's conclusion, which came as the US was selling or seeking to sell billions of dollars worth of arms to Saudi Arabia despite its rampant war crimes in Yemen.
Hopes that former President Joe Biden would take a different approach to Saudi Arabia over war crimes and Khashoggi's murder were dashed as his administration continued selling arms to the kingdom and argued in federal court that MBS should be granted sovereign immunity in a civil case filed by the slain journalist's widow.
Trump has sought closer ties to Saudi Arabia during his second term as he courts up to $1 trillion in investments from the kingdom and works to broker diplomatic normalization between Riyadh and Israel.
The New York Times reported Monday that the Trump Organization—which is run by the president’s two eldest sons—is “in talks that could bring a Trump-branded property" to Saudi Arabia, raising concerns about possible corruption and conflicts of interest.