Supreme Court agrees to hear pregnancy discrimination case

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a pair of bills Friday that would have exempted overtime pay and cash tips from state income taxes.

Assembly Bill 461 would have matched a temporary federal income tax exemption on overtime that would apply to the extra pay received for working overtime up to $12,500 per year for an individual or $25,000 per year for joint filers.

The exemption is targeted at middle-income residents and is phased out for those making an adjusted gross income between $150,000 and $275,000 as an individual or $300,000 to $550,000 as a joint filer.

“My position has always been that when we provide tax relief, it should be real, responsible, and targeted to the middle class and working families who need it,” Evers said in his veto message. “Unfortunately, I must veto this bill in its entirety because I object to this bill changing the tax code in a way that will treat Wisconsin workers who earn similar wages differently just because of their classification as salaried or hourly workers.

“A salaried worker who earns $35,000 (and is not eligible to earn overtime compensation) should not pay a different amount in taxes from an hourly worker who earns $35,000 through working overtime. We should focus on creating a fairer tax code that provides real, responsible tax relief that supports rather than divides working Wisconsinites.”

Senate Bill 36 would similarly had created an exemption for up to $25,000 in cash tips from state income tax.

“I am vetoing this bill because I object to the Legislature effectively ceding control over the direction of state tax policy to Congress by connecting the proposed state tax deduction for tips to any change in the federal deduction, regardless of what is best for Wisconsin,” Evers wrote in his veto message. “We should not be at the whims of a Republican-controlled Congress that has no problem gutting basic necessities and services like food and access to healthcare just to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

“Wisconsin should retain control over the parameters of a potential income tax deduction for tips so we can modify the policy based on what makes the most sense for Wisconsinites.”

Robert MacIntyre stormed to the top of the Texas Open leaderboard Friday with a superb 64 that put the Scot 14-under-par after two rounds of the US PGA Tour event.

Having eagled the par-five 14th hole, MacIntyre birdied four of his final five holes on day two to open up a commanding advantage with afternoon starters still on the course.

His nearest rival was Ludvig Aberg, who was in the clubhouse on 10-under.

MacIntryre's 130 is the lowest opening 36-hole score since the Texas Open moved to its current course, TPC San Antonio, in 2010.

Asked what had gone well for him on Friday, MacIntyre replied: "Everything."

"I've been driving the ball nice... Iron play today was exceptional, I would say. Hit a pure wedge shot on 17, I thought it was absolutely dynamite there," he said.

MacIntyre, ranked 11th in the world, will be among the contenders at next week's Masters, the first major of 2026.

He said he had entered the Texas Open to be "sharper going into Augusta," after having skipped San Antonio last year.

"I prefer playing my way in whether it's one, two, sometimes three events before a major," he said. 

Elsewhere it was a day to forget for overnight leader Mark Hubbard, who had opened with a fine 65 on Thursday.

The American struck a 77 on Friday including six bogeys and a double bogey on the 5th, where he became trapped in the rough beyond the green.

amz/bb

(The Center Square) – As homeownership may be growing out of reach for many young residents, Illinois lawmakers are split between trimming taxes and growing state programs.

Republicans are pushing tax relief as Democrat leaders seek to expand spending on housing programs across the state.

Illinois state Sen. Erica Harriss, R-Edwardsville, shared details of a bill she introduced in February. Senate Bill 3959 would give first-time homebuyers a $500 tax credit, applying to income tax liabilities.

Harriss told senators the average home buyer was 40 years old last year, and only 21% of all homes were bought by first-time buyers, according to Illinois Realtors Association data. She added that the median sale price has increased by 54% since 2017, with current data showing prices are roughly $295,000 statewide.

Additional data from the association shows the Chicago metro’s average is $360,000 as of February.

“As our younger generation delays buying a home, they miss out on years of building up that generational wealth, that's part of the American dream,” Harriss said. “For many young people, the path to home ownership is getting further out of reach. This bill takes a practical step to help.”

Democrats have a different plan to address housing costs in the state. In his yearly address to the General Assembly, Gov. J.B. Pritzker said housing supply is the main issue.

He proposed a plan to remove bureaucratic roadblocks that he says slow down the process while driving up costs. 

The governor’s plan also includes expanding state spending by $50 million on a program providing residents making under specific income thresholds with $15,000 mortgages.

Pritzker has been critical of Republicans’ stance on state property taxes, saying the state is not responsible for property taxes because rates are set by local governments. Republican legislators have recently called for major property tax reform.

Harriss’ bill is part of a legislative package aimed at making housing more affordable, in part by decreasing property tax burden for residents.

In a news conference announcing the package, she said Senate Bill 2093 would make a current tax credit toward residential property taxes refundable.

“It's actually a credit that most homeowners have never even heard of. Here's the problem. If the credit is worth more than you owe in income taxes, the state just keeps the difference,” Harris said.

US President Donald Trump asked Congress on Friday for $152 million to begin rebuilding the notorious Alcatraz prison, pressing ahead with his vision to return the former island lockup to active use.

The funding request, included in the White House's proposed 2027 budget, would cover the first year of converting the San Francisco Bay site into what officials describe as a "state-of-the-art secure prison facility."

Trump has pushed for reopening Alcatraz since last year, portraying it as a symbol of a tougher approach to crime. 

In a social media post at the time, he called for a "substantially enlarged and rebuilt" facility to house the country's most dangerous offenders.

The proposal comes as part of a broader Justice Department budget that emphasizes prison investment and law enforcement, though such requests are ultimately subject to approval by Congress.

Political news outlet Axios, citing administration officials, reported that any "supermax" prison complex at the site would have to be built from scratch -- putting the total cost at somewhere around $2 billion.

Alcatraz, which opened as a federal penitentiary in 1934, was once considered among the most secure prisons in the United States due to its isolated island location and the strong currents surrounding it. 

It held a relatively small number of prisoners, including high-profile inmates such as Al Capone.

The island fortress entered American cultural lore after a 1962 escape by three inmates, which became an inspiration for the film "Escape from Alcatraz" starring Clint Eastwood.

It was closed in 1963 after officials determined it was too costly to maintain.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, operating expenses were nearly three times higher than at other federal facilities, largely because all supplies -- including fresh water -- had to be transported to the island.

Since the early 1970s, Alcatraz has been managed by the National Park Service as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and has become one of San Francisco's most popular tourist attractions, drawing more than a million visitors annually.

The White House argues that rebuilding the site would help modernize the federal prison system and expand capacity for high-risk inmates.

But critics have questioned both the practicality and cost of the plan, noting that the island's infrastructure would likely require extensive reconstruction.

Feasibility studies have already been conducted by federal agencies to assess whether a modern correctional facility could be established on the site, though no final decision has been made.

Any move to proceed could face political resistance given competing budget priorities and the site's current status as a major tourism and historical landmark.

ft/sst

One French- and another Japanese-owned vessel are among a handful of vessels to have crossed the war-torn Strait of Hormuz, maritime tracking data showed Friday.

The passage, a vital maritime route for oil and liquified natural gas, has been virtually blocked by Iran since the start of the war.

But both ships made the crossing on Thursday, according to ship tracking company Marine Traffic's website.

The Maltese-flagged Kribi belonging to the French maritime transport group CMA CGM crossed the waterway to leave the Gulf on Thursday afternoon, Marine Traffic's data showed.

By early Friday, it was off Muscat, Oman, still broadcasting the message "owner France" on its transponder system in the field usually used to give the destination.

The vessel's navigation data showed it had crossed via an Iranian-approved route through its waters, dubbed the "Tehran Toll Booth" by leading shipping journal Lloyd's List.

- Southern route -

In addition, three tankers -- including one co-owned by a Japanese company -- crossed the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday by taking an alternative, southern route.

They hugged close to the shore of Oman's Musandam Peninsula -- a first in nearly three weeks according to Lloyd's List.

Before the war, which started more than a month ago, about a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) passed through the Strait.

All three ships signalled they were an "OMANI SHIP" in the message broadcast by their transponder as they crossed the strait.

The Sohar LNG, which was empty when crossing, is co-owned by Japanese shipping company Mitsui O.S.K.

That makes it the first Japanese vessel to exit the Gulf since the start of the war, according to a company statement quoted by Japanese media.

The Hong-Kong flagged New Vision, which crossed the strait on March 1 right after the war started, is expected in the French port of Le Havre on Saturday evening.

Since the conflict started however, that has dwindled to a trickle as Iran selectively attacks ships and energy facilities throughout the Gulf in retaliation for US and Israeli attacks.

A few commercial ships crossing the Strait of Hormuz recently have passed through the Iranian-approved route in the north of the waterway.

- Down to a trickle -

Just 221 commodities vessels have crossed the Strait of Hormuz since March 1, some more than once, according to Kpler data up to Friday morning.

In peacetime, the same waterway handles around 120 daily transits, according to Lloyd's List.

Of the vessels that made the crossing, 60 percent either came from Iran or were heading there.

The other countries whose vessels -- of origin or destination -- made the crossing, were in decreasing order: the United Arab Emirates, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Brazil, and Iraq.

It was not clear from the data how many had been cleared to make the crossing by Tehran.

But it did show that, among the 118 crossings by ships carrying cargo, 37 had left the Gulf carrying crude oil.

Most of those oil tankers -- 30 of them -- came from Iran or sailed under the Iranian flag. And most ships carrying Iranian oil did not specify their destination on their transponder.

Of those who did, all but one reported they were heading to China.

In the early days of the war, transponder data showed dozens of ships broadcasting messages such as "Chinese crew" or "Chinese owner" in the field usually used for their destination.

This appeared to be an attempt by the ships to avoid being targeted by Iran.

dvz-jah-ys-lmc-lcr/jj

Top seed Jessica Pegula once again fought back from a set down to reach the WTA Charleston Open semi-finals with a 3-6, 6-3, 6-2 win against Russia's Diana Shnaider on Friday.

Defending champion Pegula has lost the first set in all three matches so far, but again dug deep to maintain her hopes of retaining the title.

The world number five from the United States took two hours and 10 minutes to defeat 19th-ranked Shnaider, relying on a formidable service game that included eight aces.

Shnaider battled well in the first two sets, and broke early for a 2-0 lead in the final set, before losing six straight games.

Pegula, chasing her second tournament victory of the year after winning the title in Dubai in February, will face the winner of the quarter-final between fourth-seeded fellow American Iva Jovic and Russian Anna Kalinskaya.

Swiss third seed Belinda Bencic and fifth-seeded American Madison Keys are among the possible final opponents lurking on the other side of the draw.

Despite a first-round bye, Pegula has clocked up nine sets and more than seven hours on court so far. She has won nine of 10 matches this year that have gone to a deciding third set.

amz/ea

(The Center Square) – A new report from medical group Do No Harm debunks claims of the benefits of racial concordance, or the matching of doctors’ and patients’ races, as is proposed in an amicus brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Do No Harm’s director of research Jay Greene told The Center Square that "the AAMC's brief is merely an attempt to codify DEI in medicine and to further expand race-based hiring throughout the system.”

“Our report reveals the shoddy methodology behind each study cited by the AAMC and dismantles their baseless conclusions,” Greene said.

“The myth of racial concordance, disproven by several systematic reviews, only undermines the doctor-patient relationship,” Greene said.

“This report supports our mission to prevent politically motivated activists from pushing debunked racial theories that negatively impact patient care,” Greene said.

The AAMC did not respond to The Center Square’s request for comment.

According to a news release, Do No Harm’s report is intended to expose the AAMC’s “role in elevating activism over evidence within its amicus brief submitted in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case over race-based college admissions.”

The release said the brief “cites four unreliable studies to defend the discredited theory that racial concordance, in which patients are treated by doctors of the same race, improves health outcomes.”

According to the report, the AAMC and 45 healthcare organization allies claim in their amicus brief that “in controlled studies, Black physicians are far more likely than others to accurately assess Black patients’ pain tolerance and prescribe the correct amount of pain medication as a result.” 

Do No Harm refutes the four “unreliable studies” that are used to back the healthcare organizations’ claims.

Do No Harm’s news release states that the AAMC’s first cited study “wrongly suggests that white trainees are more likely than non-white trainees to hold false medical beliefs about black patients.”

“However, the study focuses on medical trainees (not independently practicing doctors), never compares black trainees to non-black trainees, never examines the treatment of black patients, and conveniently leaves out data showing non-white trainees were actually more likely than white trainees to hold those false beliefs,” the release said.

The second study cited by the AAMC “concludes that black children with appendicitis are as likely as white children with appendicitis to be given an analgesic but significantly less likely to receive an opioid,” Do No Harm said.

“This study also does not support racial concordance in pain treatment because it never examines that question,” the release stated.

Do No Harm said the third study cited by the AAMC “is only a review of research on racial differences in pain treatment.”

“Notably, it presents no original findings and fails to examine whether a physician’s race was associated with differences in the treatment of pain,” Do No Harm said.

“The fourth study finds that non-minority patients were more likely to receive guideline-recommended analgesic prescriptions than minority patients,” Do No Harm reported.

“However, it never examines whether pain treatment for black patients was any different if their physician was also black,” and neither did it “collect data on pain treatment for white patients,” the news release said.

Do No Harm stated in its report that “judges, legislators, and other policymakers often rely on leading health organizations to inform them about what medical science has to say on matters of public policy,” making unfounded claims such as found in the AAMC’s brief all the more “alarming.”

“The realization that these medical associations are no longer reliable scientific authorities is beginning to spread across top policymakers and the general public,” the report said.

“The national experience with Covid-19 was a shocking wake-up call,” the report said. “And the ideological commitment to racial preferences despite the lack of scientific support is only confirming this alarming new reality.”

(The Center Square) – Coloradans have mixed reactions to this week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling against the state's ban on conversion therapy for the LGBTQIA+ community.

At issue in Chiles v. Salazar is conversion therapy, or "talk therapy" as some have called it, for minors with unwanted same-sex attractions or gender identity issues.

Justices ruled 8-1 Tuesday that Colorado’s ban under a 2019 law violates the First Amendment rights of Christian counselor Kaley Chiles and sent the case back to a lower court.

In a video posted on X, Chiles expressed hope that this “win for free speech will fuel a greater pursuit of truth,” both among the professionals and in the counseling room.

“Our kids deserve it,” Chiles said alongside her attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom. “The law I'm challenging harms kids and silences speech. Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made.”

ADF lawyer Jake Warner said the law firm was “thrilled” with this week’s ruling for Chiles.

“She is a Christian counselor who counsels clients on a number of things, including gender identity, but Colorado passed a one-way censorship law that says that if clients come to her wanting help to change, to become comfortable with their bodies, that Kaylee cannot have those conversations with her clients,” Warner told The Center Square during an interview. “Instead, Colorado says she's only allowed to push kids toward gender transition, which often leads to harmful drugs and procedures, so that's obviously a very big First Amendment violation, and the U.S. Supreme Court said so earlier this week.”

Like Chiles, Warner said this ruling helps kids.

“Studies suggest that roughly 90% of kids who struggle with gender confusion will naturally become comfortable with their God-given sex if they're not pushed toward transition,” said Warner.

The Interfaith Alliance of Colorado does not agree with the ruling.

In a press release, Interfaith called the decision “discouraging.” The organization also said that the state law in question, which was signed on May 31, 2019, reflects the “consensus of major medical organizations that conversion practices are harmful, ineffective, and unsupported” by scientific evidence.

“Therapists and other counselors don’t have a free pass to harm patients,” said Interfaith.

Human Rights Campaign, which has a chapter in Colorado, also opposed the ruling. By deciding in favor of Chiles,  the court is allowing “licensed mental health practitioners to traumatize children," HRC said in a statement. HRC did not respond to The Center Square's request for an interview.

When asked about the case being sent back down, ADF’s Warner did not expect anything to change. Warner called it the beginning of the end.

“The case is still going on, but the way in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled is really the writing on the wall,” Warner said. “The court said that there is no difference. The First Amendment applies in the counseling room just like it applies everywhere else, and the state doesn't have a free hand to censor viewpoints that it disagrees with.

"And the state has to at least overcome what courts call strict scrutiny, the highest test known to constitutional law," he said. “Colorado has identified no evidence that's even close to overcoming the standard that it has to satisfy.”

As Warner sees it, Colorado “freely admits” that it has identified no study that's on point focusing on voluntary conversations between licensed counselors and willing minor clients.

“So, yeah, the case is going to keep going, but this is the beginning of the end for counseling censorship laws,” said Warner.

Meanwhile, Interfaith vowed to continue to work in coalition with faith leaders and communities, including the LGBTQIA+ and medical communities, to “ensure there are paths towards accountability, empowerment, and safety for those vulnerable to conversion therapy.”

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter in Chiles v. Salazar. In her opinion, Jackson, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, wrote that “treatment standards exist in America,” whether people like it or not.

Still, Colorado state Rep. Chris Richardson, whose district includes Adams, Arapahoe, Cheyenne, El Paso, Elbert, Kit Carson and Lincoln counties, said the Supreme Court got it right in ruling for Chiles.

“Regardless of the desires of the sponsors of Colorado House Bill 19-1129, it was not right to compel speech and force counselors to violate their religious convictions,” Richardson told The Center Square. “The Supreme Court got it right in Chiles v. Salazar, and I’m proud to have played a small role in supporting that outcome along with my colleagues who also signed the amicus brief." 

HB 19-1129 prohibits psychiatrists or mental health care providers from conversion therapy discussions with patients under age 18. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat who is an openly gay man, signed the bill into law in 2019.

When asked for comment, the governor's office pointed The Center Square to Polis' statement that Colorado is for everyone. Polis added that "conversion therapy does not work, can seriously harm youth, and Coloradans should beware before turning over their hard-earned money" to what Polis described as a scam.

"I am evaluating the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and working to figure out how to better protect LGBTQ youth and free speech in Colorado," said Polis. "We are fighting for everyone's right to be who you are in our Colorado for all."

ADF, which represented Chiles, has been involved in several U.S. Supreme Court cases out of Colorado. Examples of clients include baker Jack Phillips and graphic designer Lorie Smith.

The Phillips case - known as Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - involved the baker not wanting to create a same-sex wedding cake for religious reasons. At the time, Colorado required professionals to offer services to all customers. In 2018, Justices ruled 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s actions in going after Phillips for his objections violated the free exercise of religion clause.  

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, justices ruled 6-3 in 2023 that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing Smith to create wedding websites for same-sex weddings. Smith wanted to design websites only for traditional, one-man, one-woman marriages.

(The Center Square) – Illinois’ ban on conversion therapy may be challenged in the near future.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against a similar prohibition in Colorado. Justices said the state does not have constitutional authority to restrict professional conversations of therapists and counselors licensed by the state.

Chicago attorney John Mauck said the state has no business telling counselors they can help people go gay, but they can’t help them go straight.

“I found it particularly important that the two liberal judges who joined the majority said you just can't have an uneven playing field,” Mauck said.

Mauck worked to secure a 2017 ruling – Pastors Protecting Youth, et al. v. Madigan –  that the Illinois ban did not apply to pastors.

State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, condemned the high court’s decision.

“As the lead sponsor on the state’s 11-year-old ban on the unethical practice of conversion abuse at the hands of medical professionals, I remain committed to ensuring that our state continues to lead the way in finding ways to protect our LGBTQ+ community from increasingly aggressive federal attacks on state laws protecting the community,” Cassidy said in a statement. 

The Chicago Democrat said the Illinois prohibition is not directly impacted by this decision, although she indicated she would work with advocates to prepare for future decisions.

Cassidy’s office did not reply to The Center Square’s request for an interview.

Mauck said he expects the Illinois law to ruled unconstitutional.

“Free speech rights go to all counselors in a situation like this, and they override the Illinois prohibition, in my opinion. That’s what happened in Colorado, and I think the courts will follow that exactly in Illinois and say that counselors are now free to counsel people who want help getting a straight heterosexual orientation,” Mauck told The Center Square.

Mauck said he thinks most counselors would wait for a court ruling in Illinois before beginning therapy, but he said they could begin now if they are confident the law is unconstitutional.

“There are a lot of counselors who want to help people go straight, and one of them is probably going to challenge the Illinois law, I imagine, in the next few weeks or a couple months,” Mauck said.

Jonathan Bilyk contributed to this story.

(The Center Square) – The White House proposes a dramatic increase in defense spending in fiscal 2027 while significantly reducing spending in other departments, according to its budget submission released Friday.

The request comes as U.S. lawmakers still haven’t finished funding all federal agencies for the current fiscal year and are currently locked in a shutdown of the unfunded Department of Homeland Security.

The 92-page budget proposal includes nearly $2.2 trillion in overall requested spending, with about $1.8 trillion of that to be implemented via the 12 appropriations bills. President Donald Trump’s request for $350 billion in supplemental funding for defense spending makes up the rest of the total cost.

That’s despite the discretionary spending in the budget proposal overwhelmingly consisting of Department of Defense funding, about $1.1 trillion, roughly $251 billion from fiscal year 2026.

By contrast, nondefense discretionary spending is cut by $73 billion, a 10% reduction. 

Agencies and programs facing the most drastic potential cuts include the Environmental Protection Agency, which under the proposal would receive $4.2 billion, a 52% cut.

Under the proposal, State and International programs receive $35.6 billion, a 30% reduction, while the Department of Labor gets just under $10 billion, a roughly 26% cut from the fiscal year 2026 enacted baseline.

NASA gets $18.8 billion, a 23% reduction, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture gets just under $21 billion, 19% less than last year. 

Health and Human Services receives 12.5% less than last year – $111 billion – while Housing and Urban Development receives $73.5 billion, or 13% less than last year. The departments of Energy and Commerce also see respective cuts of roughly 12%.

Though the Education Department sees only a 2.9% reduction, the White House added in the document that it plans to continue the department’s “path to elimination.”

The Trump administration wants to increase funding for Veterans Affairs to $145 billion and funding for the Department of Justice by $41 billion.

Proposed funding for the Department of Homeland Security – which lawmakers still haven’t funded for fiscal year 2026 – would essentially stay the same in fiscal year 2027 at $63 billion.

Though lawmakers use the president’s budget request as a general starting point for appropriations negotiations, they almost always make significant changes. 

Democrats are particularly against the proposed funding cuts and the defense funding boost that the administration is requesting.

“The vision President Trump has outlined for America in his budget is bleak and unacceptable,” U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, stated Friday. “President Trump wants to slash medical research to fund costly foreign wars. It doesn’t get more backward than that, and the only responsible thing to do with a budget this morally bankrupt is to toss it in the trash.”

Before congressional committees can even start marking up appropriations bills, the House still has to pass the Senate’s hybrid FY26 Homeland Security bill, which excludes annual ICE and CBP funding. 

Republicans also have to craft and pass through both chambers a filibuster-proof budget reconciliation bill to force through the missing ICE and CBP funding.

Budget reconciliation will be further complicated by Republican lawmakers who want to use it as a vehicle to pass other legislation that Democrats are blocking in the Senate, particularly the SAVE America Act, which likely runs afoul of the chamber’s Byrd Rule. 

Trump wants lawmakers to finish funding DHS by June 1, which marks eight months into fiscal year 2026. Congress then faces an Oct. 1 deadline to pass all fiscal year 2027 appropriations bills. 

Given Congress’ dismal track record of funding the government on time, it likely will attempt to pass a Continuing Resolution to temporarily extend funding levels for any departments and agencies they haven’t funded. Otherwise, Congress faces yet another government shutdown.