law 2 - The Latremie Post

Exxon sues California over new laws requiring corporate climate disclosures

**ExxonMobil Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging California’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Laws**

ExxonMobil has filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging two California laws that require the oil giant to report the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the use of its products worldwide.

The company submitted a 30-page complaint on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. ExxonMobil argues that these laws violate its First Amendment free speech rights by compelling it to “trumpet California’s preferred message even though ExxonMobil believes the speech is misleading and misguided.”

—

**Overview of the California Climate Legislation**

Senate Bill 253, known as the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act of 2023, mandates the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt regulations this year. These regulations require public and private companies with over $1 billion in annual revenue to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions across three different “scopes”:

– **Scope 1:** Direct greenhouse gas emissions from the company and its branches.
– **Scope 2:** Indirect emissions, such as electricity purchased by the company.
– **Scope 3:** Emissions from the company’s supply chain, including waste, water usage, business travel, and employee commutes. Notably, these account for about 75% of a company’s greenhouse gas emissions in many industries.

Reporting on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions will begin in 2026, with Scope 3 reporting starting in 2027.

—

**ExxonMobil’s Objections**

According to the lawsuit, the Air Resources Board solicited public input during the rule-making process but has yet to respond to ExxonMobil’s September 5 letter, which detailed its objections to the proposed reporting methods.

ExxonMobil contends that the legislative history reveals the laws aim to unfairly single out companies like ExxonMobil “for being large” and to spur public criticism. The complaint states, “California may believe that companies that meet the statutes’ revenue thresholds are uniquely responsible for climate change, but the First Amendment categorically bars it from forcing ExxonMobil to speak in service of that misguided viewpoint.”

—

**Expert and Legislative Perspectives**

Michael Gerrard, a prominent climate change legal expert at Columbia University, commented, “These laws do not require Exxon to make any changes in the way it produces, transports, refines or sells oil. They are just about information that Exxon doesn’t want to provide to the public.” He continued, “If Exxon thinks any of the information would be misleading, it’s free to explain why so that readers can draw their own conclusions.”

Supporters of the legislation argue it discourages corporate greenwashing—the practice of falsely portraying a company’s efforts to reduce climate emissions. Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), the bill’s author, stated at the time of adoption, “We need the full picture to make the deep emissions cuts that scientists tell us are necessary to avert the worst impacts of climate change.”

—

**Additional Legislation and Legal Challenges**

Another related bill, Senate Bill 261, requires corporations with revenues over $500 million to disclose their climate-related financial risks. In its lawsuit, ExxonMobil claims this law would force it “to engage in granular conjecture about unknowable future developments and to publicly disseminate that speculation on its website.”

—

**Defendants Named in the Lawsuit**

The lawsuit names as defendants California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Air Resources Board Chair Lauren Sanchez, Executive Officer Steven S. Cliff, and two officials from the Board’s Industrial Strategies Division.

—

Neither the Attorney General’s office nor ExxonMobil responded to requests for comment on Saturday. The case is expected to bring significant attention to the intersection of climate policy, corporate responsibility, and free speech rights.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-10-25/exxonmobil-lawsuit-california-greenhouse-emissions

How a 2018 Supreme Court decision paved the way for meteoric growth in legal sports betting

To place an obituary, please email the following information to obits@pioneerpress.com. Note that there is no option to place obituaries through our website. For any questions, feel free to contact our obituary desk at 651-228-5263.

**General Information:**
– Your full name
– Address (City, State, Zip Code)
– Phone number
– Alternate phone number (if any)

**Obituary Specifications:**
– Name of the deceased
– Obituary text
– A photo in JPEG or PDF format is preferred; TIF and other files are accepted. We will contact you if there are any issues with the photo.
– Ad run dates

There is a discount for running the obituary more than one day, but this must be scheduled on the first run date to apply. If a photo is used, it must be published on all run dates to qualify for the discount. Please contact us for more information.

**Policies:**
**Verification of Death:** To publish an obituary, we require the name and phone number of the funeral home or cremation society handling the arrangements. We must contact them during business hours to verify the death.

If the deceased’s body has been donated to the University of Minnesota Anatomy Bequest Program or a similar program, please provide their phone number for verification. Allow enough time for us to contact them, especially on weekends when hours may be limited.

Alternatively, a death certificate is acceptable for verification—only one of these two options is required.

**Guestbook and Outside Websites:**
We do not allow references to other media sources with guestbooks or obituaries placed elsewhere. We may include a funeral home website or a family email for contact instead. Contact us if you have questions about this policy.

**Obituary Process:**
Once your submission is complete, we will fax or email a proof for your review prior to publication. This proof includes the price and scheduled run dates. Please review it carefully. Notify us of any errors or changes before the notice appears in the Pioneer Press by the deadlines for each day. After publication, we are not responsible for errors missed during final proofing.

**Online Obituaries:**
Changes to online obituaries may be handled through the obituary desk. Contact us for details.

**Payment Procedure:**
Pre-payment is required for all obituary notices before the publication deadline. Payment methods include:
– Credit Card: Accepted by phone only (due to PCI regulations)
– EFT: Provide routing and account numbers by phone
– Cash: Accepted at our front counter Monday to Friday, 8:00 AM to 3:30 PM

Call 651-228-5263 with your payment information after you have reviewed and approved the proof.

**Rates:**
– Minimum charge: $162 for the first 10 lines
– Each additional line after the first 10: $12.20
– Ads under 10 lines are charged the minimum rate of $162
– For a second run date, the cost is $8.20 per line from the first line
– Each photo published costs $125 per day

For example, a 20-line ad on the first run date costs $164. Two photos published for two days would be charged as four photo charges totaling $500.

**Deadlines:**
Please adhere to deadlines to ensure your obituary is published on the requested day.

**Memoriam (Non-Obituary) Requests:**
Memoriam submissions are remembrances of loved ones and have different rates from obituaries. For more information, please email memoriams@pioneerpress.com or call 651-228-5280.

**Hours:** Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (closed weekends and holidays).

—

### Supreme Court Decision on Sports Betting Explained

By Mark Sherman, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A 2018 Supreme Court decision opened the floodgates for the legalized sports-betting industry, now worth billions of dollars a year, despite controversy surrounding the ruling. This decision is back in the spotlight following arrests of more than 30 people, including an NBA player and coach, as part of investigations into criminal schemes involving rigged sports bets and poker games linked to Mafia families.

**What Did the Supreme Court Decide?**
The court struck down a 1992 federal law, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which barred betting on football, basketball, baseball, and other sports in most states. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, stated that the way Congress prohibited states from authorizing sports betting violated the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, which protects states’ powers.

“The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make,” Alito wrote. He added that the court’s role is to interpret whether the law Congress enacted aligns with the Constitution—and PASPA did not.

The trouble, Alito explained, was that Congress did not make sports betting a federal crime but instead barred states from legalizing it, infringing upon their authority.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Neil Gorsuch, and Elena Kagan joined Alito’s opinion.

**Dissenting Views**
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, arguing that the court should have invalidated only the part of the law restricting states and preserved the rest, especially provisions affecting private parties and betting schemes. Writing for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, she highlighted that courts generally seek to salvage rather than demolish a law. Breyer agreed that parts of the law should be struck down but disagreed that the entire law should fail.

Alito countered that Congress did not intend for the provisions to be treated separately.

**Concerns About Corruption**
Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, a former NBA star, sponsored PASPA to protect against the dangers of sports betting. Major professional sports leagues and the NCAA urged the court to uphold the law, fearing gambling would harm the integrity of their games. They also highlighted the additional resources needed to monitor betting patterns and investigate suspicious activity. The Trump administration supported maintaining the ban.

Alito acknowledged the controversy around legal sports gambling, citing historical scandals such as the 1919 “Black Sox Scandal” and 1950s college basketball point-shaving schemes as examples of risks to sports integrity.

Nevertheless, he concluded that Congress could not require states to maintain prohibitions against sports betting.

Originally published: October 24, 2025 at 11:10 AM CDT.
https://www.twincities.com/2025/10/24/sports-betting-supreme-court/

Sean Duffy Details How He Could Hammer California For Giving Illegal Aliens CDLs Following Fatal Wreck

I am currently conducting a quick review of their lack of compliance. This assessment aims to identify the key areas where standards have not been met and highlight necessary improvements. By thoroughly examining these issues, we can work towards ensuring full compliance moving forward.
https://dailycaller.com/2025/10/24/sean-duffy-details-how-he-could-hammer-california-for-giving-illegal-aliens-cdls-following-fatal-wreck/

EU says TikTok and Meta broke transparency rules under landmark tech law

The European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, announced on Friday that it has preliminarily found both TikTok and Meta in breach of its transparency rules.

According to the Commission, both tech giants violated their obligation to grant researchers adequate access to public data under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

Additionally, the Commission found Meta—covering both Instagram and Facebook—in preliminary breach of its duties to provide users with simple mechanisms to notify illegal content. Meta also failed to allow users to effectively challenge content moderation decisions, the statement added.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/24/eu-says-tiktok-and-meta-broke-transparency-rules-under-tech-law.html

Report: Carl Lawson agrees to terms with Ravens

The Ravens have agreed to terms with defensive end Carl Lawson, according to Jordan Schultz of Always On!. Lawson worked out for the Ravens prior to reaching the agreement.

Last season with the Cowboys, Lawson recorded five sacks and 15 quarterback hits over 15 games. He played 401 defensive snaps in 2024, showcasing his durability and impact on the field.

Throughout his career, Lawson has amassed 32 sacks and 122 quarterback hits while playing for the Bengals (2017-2020), Jets (2022-2023), and Cowboys (2024).

The Ravens, currently ranked 30th in yards allowed and 32nd in points allowed, are clearly looking to strengthen their defense. Adding Lawson to the roster will provide much-needed help to the team’s defensive front.
https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/report-carl-lawson-agrees-to-terms-with-ravens

Jack Smith calls Republicans’ bluff with request to testify — on one condition

Former special counsel Jack Smith is calling Republicans’ bluff, turning the tables Thursday by requesting to testify publicly in open hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Smith’s attorneys made the request this week in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

“As described by various Senators, the toll data collection was narrowly tailored and limited to the four days from January 4, 2021 to January 7, 2021, with a focus on telephonic activity during the period immediately surrounding the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol,” Smith’s lawyers wrote.

Grassley has accused Smith of improperly spying on Republican lawmakers during the Department of Justice investigation and prosecution of President Donald Trump.

“I think it’s important that he’s speaking up in a way to kind of demystify what has been grossly misrepresented to the American people by the senators,” former FBI Deputy Director and CNN senior law enforcement analyst Andrew McCabe said Thursday on CNN’s *The Arena* with anchor Kasie Hunt.

In that testimony from a few weeks ago, McCabe explained, “Toll records are a very rudimentary kind of first step investigative technique in many, many, many, almost all investigations. And it’s typically done early in an investigation when you have an allegation and you’re trying to determine — you’re trying to vet an allegation to even see if there’s something worth investigating.”

He added, “So if someone comes to you, let’s say a situation like this, if someone makes an allegation that they have information that the president contacted a particular senator in the process of trying to stall the Congress’s work on certifying the election, one way to vet that information would be to get toll records, to see if there was actually telephonic contact between those people.”

Smith’s public testimony could shed light and clarify what happened in the investigation and the methods behind it, McCabe said.

“And after you’ve proved that if there’s no contact, then you know not to go down that investigative avenue. If there is contact, then there are, of course, more techniques that you can use to get to the bottom of it,” he added.

“I should also say that it takes a grand jury subpoena to acquire those records. This is not something that a prosecutor or an FBI agent just dreams up off the top of their heads and, you know, calls up the phone company and says, ‘Hey, send us everything you have.’ There is a process. These records are accessed lawfully under the purview of the grand jury. So as I said, I think it was grossly misrepresented in that hearing.”
https://www.rawstory.com/jack-smith-2674227924/

“Gilbert Told on Everyone” – NBA Fans Look Back on Gilbert Arenas’ Comments After String of Gambling Arrests

Terry Rozier and Chauncey Billups were arrested on Wednesday in connection with the FBI’s gambling probe.

This development has sparked renewed attention from fans, who recalled comments made by Gilbert Arenas back in August.

The arrests mark a significant moment in the ongoing investigation, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations involved. Fans and analysts alike are closely monitoring the situation as it unfolds.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/basketball/news-gilbert-told-everyone-nba-fans-look-back-gilbert-arenas-comments-after-string-gambling-arrests

EFF Backs Constitutional Challenge to Ecuador’s Intelligence Law That Undermines Human Rights

In early September, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) submitted an amicus brief to Ecuador’s Constitutional Court in support of a constitutional challenge filed by Ecuadorian NGOs, including INREDH and LaLibre. The case challenges the constitutionality of the Ley Orgánica de Inteligencia (LOI) and its implementing regulation, the General Regulation of the LOI.

EFF’s amicus brief argues that the LOI enables disproportionate surveillance and secrecy that undermine constitutional and Inter-American human rights standards. We urge the Constitutional Court to declare the LOI and its regulation unconstitutional in their entirety.

### Structural Flaws of the LOI

Our submission notes that:

> “The LOI presents a structural flaw that undermines compliance with the principles of legality, legitimate purpose, suitability, necessity, and proportionality; it inverts the rule and the exception, with serious harm to rights enshrined constitutionally and under the Convention; and it prioritizes indeterminate state interests, in contravention of the ultimate aim of intelligence activities and state action, namely the protection of individuals, their rights, and freedoms.”

### Core Legal Problems Identified

#### Vague and Overbroad Definitions

The LOI contains key terms such as “national security,” “integral security of the State,” “threats,” and “risks” that are either left undefined or framed so broadly that they could encompass almost anything. This vagueness grants intelligence agencies wide and unchecked discretion, falling short of the legal certainty standard required under the American Convention on Human Rights (CADH).

#### Secrecy and Lack of Transparency

The LOI makes secrecy the rule rather than the exception, reversing the Inter-American principle of maximum disclosure, which holds that access to information should be the norm and secrecy a narrowly justified exception.

The law establishes a classification system—“restricted,” “secret,” and “top secret”—for intelligence and counterintelligence information, but lacks clear, verifiable parameters to guide its application on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, all information produced by the governing body (ente rector) of the National Intelligence System is classified as secret by default.

Moreover, intelligence budgets and spending are insulated from meaningful public oversight, concentrated under a single authority, and eventually destroyed, leaving no mechanism for accountability.

#### Weak or Nonexistent Oversight Mechanisms

The LOI leaves intelligence agencies to regulate themselves, with almost no external scrutiny. Civilian oversight is minimal and limited to occasional, closed-door briefings before a parliamentary commission that lacks real access to information or decision-making power.

This structure offers no guarantee of independent or judicial supervision and fosters an environment where intelligence operations proceed without transparency or accountability.

#### Intrusive Powers Without Judicial Authorization

The LOI permits access to communications, databases, and personal data without prior judicial order. This enables mass surveillance of electronic communications, metadata, and databases across public and private entities—including telecommunication operators.

Such provisions directly contradict rulings from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which establish that any restriction on the right to privacy must be necessary, proportionate, and subject to independent oversight.

Furthermore, it contravenes the CAJAR vs. Colombia judgment, which affirms that intrusive surveillance requires prior judicial authorization.

### International Human Rights Standards Applied

Our amicus curiae draws on the CAJAR vs. Colombia judgment, which set strict standards for intelligence activities. Ecuador’s LOI falls short of all these tests. Specifically, it:

– Fails to provide an adequate legal basis for limiting rights.
– Contravenes principles of necessity and proportionality.
– Lacks robust controls and safeguards, such as prior judicial authorization and meaningful civilian oversight.
– Disregards related data protection guarantees and the rights of data subjects.

At its core, the LOI structurally prioritizes vague notions of “state interest” over the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It legalizes secrecy, unchecked surveillance, and impunity for intelligence agencies.

### Conclusion

For these reasons, we strongly urge Ecuador’s Constitutional Court to declare the LOI and its regulations unconstitutional, as they violate both the Ecuadorian Constitution and the American Convention on Human Rights (CADH).
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/eff-backs-constitutional-challenge-ecuadors-intelligence-law-undermines-human

Abbott spooks academia after declaring Texas will go after professors for ‘ideological differences’

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has rattled academia and legal experts with his open declaration that his state is “targeting professors” over their personal beliefs.

While Republican governors have increasingly viewed classrooms as ideological battlegrounds, Abbott’s explicit position is raising greater concern. He stated that a Texas educator should have lost his job over “ideological differences,” a stance that has alarmed many in the education and legal communities.

This approach highlights the growing tensions surrounding academic freedom and the role of personal beliefs in education, prompting widespread debate about the limits of ideological expression for educators in Texas.
https://www.kxan.com/top-stories/abbott-spooks-academia-after-declaring-texas-will-go-after-professors-for-ideological-differences/

Sexual assault, drugging trial begins for former owner of Grateful Dead-themed bars

Jay Bianchi is alleged to have drugged and sexually assaulted multiple individuals over a span of four years, from 2020 to 2024.

These serious accusations have brought significant attention to the ongoing investigations, as authorities work to uncover the full extent of the alleged incidents.

Further details are expected to emerge as the case progresses, highlighting the importance of awareness and support for victims of such crimes.
https://www.denverpost.com/2025/10/21/jay-bianchi-trial-denver/