June, 10 2016, 02:45pm EDT

North Carolina Asks Court to Keep Anti-Transgender Provisions of HB2 in Effect
In court documents filed yesterday, North Carolina and the University of North Carolina system argued that the state's law banning transgender people from public restrooms matching their gender identity should remain in effect while a legal challenge proceeds in federal court. The law, House Bill 2, also removes legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and others.
RALEIGH, N.C.
In court documents filed yesterday, North Carolina and the University of North Carolina system argued that the state's law banning transgender people from public restrooms matching their gender identity should remain in effect while a legal challenge proceeds in federal court. The law, House Bill 2, also removes legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and others.
On May 16, six LGBT North Carolinians and members of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to stop the enforcement of the provisions of the law that target transgender people for discrimination in single-sex facilities while the case proceeds through the court system.
The individuals and ACLU members are represented by the ACLU of North Carolina, the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the law firm of Jenner and Block.
The groups released the following statement today in response to yesterday's motions:
"After rushing to enact HB2 in a span of hours, the government is now asking the court for six months to study its own law, so it can figure out what to say in its defense, all while transgender people suffer. By arguing that HB2 should remain in effect, Gov. McCrory, legislative leadership, and UNC are continuing to defend a law that specifically targets transgender people who just want to be able to use public facilities safely and securely like everyone else. Every defendant opposes efforts to block HB2's discriminatory provisions from remaining in effect while this case moves forward. In so doing, all of the defendants are continuing to inflict daily harm on the transgender North Carolinians we represent and to defy federal court rulings that conclude that federal law forbids discrimination against transgender people."
The lawsuit, Carcano v. McCrory, was filed days after the law was passed by the North Carolina General Assembly and signed by Gov. Pat McCrory.
To read more about the case: https://www.aclu.org/cases/carcano-et-al-v-mccrory-et-al
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) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
'Unprecedented Handout': Senate GOP Tax Bill Even More Regressive Than House Version
"Senate Republicans apparently saw the House Republican tax plan as a challenge, because their version of this bill is an even bigger rip-off," said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden.
Jun 26, 2025
An analysis released this week by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation shows that the tax portion of Senate Republicans' reconciliation package is even more favorable to the rich than the House GOP version—and worse for low-income families.
The distributional analysis, published Tuesday, estimates that the richest 0.1% would on average receive $255,155 in tax breaks under the Senate legislation.
That's $3,093 morethan they would receive under the House GOP bill, according to Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-Ore.) office, which in a statement Wednesday described the Republican budget package as "an unprecedented handout to big corporations and the wealthy paid for by stealing from typical families and driving millions of Americans into hardship and misery."
By contrast, an average family earning $30,000 per year would get a tax break of just $108 under the Senate GOP plan, according to JCT—$51 less than the family would receive under the House-passed bill. (The JCT analysis does not account for the devastating impact that the GOP's proposed cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance would have on low-income households.)
Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said Wednesday that "Senate Republicans apparently saw the House Republican tax plan as a challenge, because their version of this bill is an even bigger rip-off."
"This bill will give the ultra-wealthy annual tax breaks of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but low-income families will be lucky to get enough to cover groceries for a week," said Wyden. "The reality is, this Republican plan will drive the vulnerable into misery and drag down the middle class for the benefit of big corporations and the rich. It's getting worse with every rewrite."
The Senate GOP tax package is expected to cost $4.2 trillion over the next decade, notwithstanding Republicans' attempted use of budget gimmicks to dramatically understate the measure's projected deficit impact. Senate Republicans have argued that because the 2017 Trump-GOP tax cuts are "current policy," it wouldn't cost anything to extend them.
"Don't believe Republicans when they try and float their 'magic math' to claim this bill will only cost a fraction of what it will really cost," Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, said Tuesday. "It's fiscally reckless and dishonest. This is the Great Betrayal of working families where families lose, and billionaires win."
JCT's breakdown of the highly regressive distributional effects of the Senate GOP tax plan broadly aligns with outside analyses. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), 69% of the net tax cuts under the Senate proposal would go to the richest fifth of Americans during the legislation's first year in effect.
"There are plenty of technical differences between the House and Senate versions of this legislation, but the bottom line for both is the same," said ITEP federal policy director Steve Wamhoff. "Both bills give more tax cuts to the richest 1% than to the entire bottom 60% of Americans and both bills particularly favor high-income people living in more conservative states."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Decry GOP's $15 Billion Rural Hospital Fund as Sick Joke Compared to $800 Billion in Medicaid Cuts
Instead of offering a "disaster fund" for rural hospitals that would lose crucial funding due to Medicaid cuts, one Democratic senator said Republicans should not "create the problem in the first place."
Jun 26, 2025
"That ought to do it."
That was Democratic Senator Ron Wyden's sardonic response Wednesday to a new proposal put forward by Senate Finance Committee Republicans whose proposed solution to the devastating impacts of the $800 billion in Medicaid cuts they want to impose is a so-called $15 billion "stabilization fund" for rural hospitals that rely on Medicaid to operate.
Wyden was among several Democrats who appeared fed up this week with Republicans' attempts to paper over the devastation hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts would cause in communities across the United States.
While several Republicans in the House have acknowledged that cutting Medicaid to help fund tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans would harm "vulnerable constituents"—echoing warnings that Democrats and progressive advocates have been shouting for months—Senate GOP lawmakers have also evidently looked at the party's budget reconciliation bill and its Medicaid provider tax decrease, which would slash state funding for Medicaid, and come to terms with the suffering the proposal would inflict on their own voters.
"The devastation to healthcare in the United States will be red and blue," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told the news outlet NOTUS. "Red, white, and blue, across the country, and I think they're hearing from constituents."
According to a report released last week by the AFL-CIO, with states losing Medicaid funding from the provider tax decrease, more than 330 rural hospitals are expected to go out of business if the Republicans manage to pass the reconciliation bill as written.
"This is literal life-and-death for folks who will have to travel even farther to access the healthcare they need," said Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive think tank and advocacy group.
Democrats suggested the apparent panic created by public outrage over the proposed cuts led Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee to circulate a memo Wednesday proposing a $15 billion fund for rural hospitals—but not facilities in urban areas, which also serve many Medicaid recipients but lie in largely Democratic areas.
About half the money in the fund would be made available for rural hospitals across the country and the other half would go to specific hospitals chosen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a Republican senator toldThe Hill.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) denounced the proposal as "a slush fund" that exemplified "the corruption" behind the GOP's megabill.
Republicans including Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) have proposed a larger $100 billion fund for hospitals—a number Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) scoffed at Wednesday—but Democrats were quick to point out that a bigger fund wouldn't reverse the impact of $800 billion in Medicaid cuts.
"The rural hospital fund is a fig leaf that will let them pretend that they can take away hundreds of billions of dollars in healthcare reimbursements," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told NOTUS.
Several Democrats and advocates said Republicans were desperately "trying to solve a problem they're creating" by slashing a healthcare program used by more than 71 million Americans.
"The obvious question is, don't create the problem in the first place," Wyden told NOTUS. "Don't create the need for things like disaster funds."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Victory for Working People': Judge Blocks Trump Attack on Public Employee Unions
"We applaud this ruling as a critical defense of our communities and our rights at work," said the head of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
Jun 26, 2025
A federal judge on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from ending collective bargaining rights for federal employees whose work the administration says includes national security aspects. The union plaintiffs in the case hailed the decision as a "victory for working people."
"This executive order is a direct effort to silence federal workers' voice on the job—an essential freedom that helps maintain the integrity of our democracy," wrote Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, one of the unions that brought the lawsuit.
"Federal workers serve every community, and targeting them through political retribution threatens the freedom of all working people to fight for fair treatment. We applaud this ruling as a critical defense of our communities and our rights at work," Saunders said.
On March 27, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order with the aim of terminating collective bargaining with federal labor unions across many federal agencies, including the U.S. State Department, the Department of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission, and the General Services Administration. These agencies, according to the executive order, are "determined to have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work."
Under federal law, the president is authorized to exclude agencies and subdivisions of agencies if those are the agency's primary function.
In an accompanying fact sheet, the White House called out "certain federal unions" which have "declared war on President Trump's agenda."
According to the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the executive order impacts nearly a million federal employees.
In April, six unions that represent federal workers, including AFGE, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, arguing that that the executive order unconstitutionally retaliates against the union plaintiffs for their activities opposing Trump, which they argue is protected First Amendment activity.
In their complaint, the unions said that the Trump administration erred when it applied the national security exemption to workers whose jobs are not related to national security.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge James Donato highlighted the White House fact sheet published alongside the order: "The fact sheet called out federal unions for vocal opposition to President Trump's agenda. It condemned unions who criticized the president and expressed support only for unions who toed the line. It mandated the dissolution of long-standing collective bargaining rights and other workplace protections for federal unions deemed oppositional to the president."
"All of this is solid evidence of a tie between the exercise of First Amendment rights and a government sanction," he wrote.
Donato also noted Trump "applied the national security label to an unprecedented swath of federal agencies, including whole cabinet departments for the first time in history."
David J. Holway, national president of National Association of Government Employees, another plaintiff, said that "this executive order isn't about national security. President Trump is punishing NAGE and other unions for protecting the rights of workers and standing up to the administration’s unlawful actions. The court made it clear: national security cannot be used as a smokescreen to silence federal workers. No president is above the law."
According to CNN, the judge's decision on Tuesday clashes with a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in May lifted a different judge's block on the same executive order, in a case brought by a separate union.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular