Tag: block

Conservative group sues to block California boardroom diversity law

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A conservative legal group announced Monday that it sued to block California’s first-in-the-nation law that requires hundreds of corporations based in the state to have directors from racial or sexual minorities on their boards.

Judicial Watch claimed in the suit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court that the law is unconstitutional.

“The legislation’s requirement that certain corporations appoint a specific number of directors based upon race, ethnicity, sexual preference, and transgender status is immediately suspect and presumptively invalid and triggers strict scrutiny review by the court,” the group said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill last week saying it was crucial to fighting racial injustice by giving minorities “seats at the table” of corporate power.

California already has a law requiring corporations to have at least one female director on their boards. Judicial Watch is also challenging that law in court and a trial is scheduled next summer.


The new measure cited statistics showing few of the 662 public corporations headquartered in California had Blacks or Latinos on their boards.

The measure requires at least two directors from different racial or sexual minority groups be appointed to boards with four to nine directors by the end of 2022. Three directors are required for boards with nine or more directors.

Firms that don’t comply would face fines of $100,00 for first violations and $300,000 for repeated violations.

Those who qualify would self-identify as Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Alaska Native, or as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

The lawsuit notes that a Senate analysis said the bill draws distinctions based on race and ethnicity, and therefore is “suspect.”

The group said the law is unconstitutional because the quotas don’t achieve a compelling governmental interest that is more narrowly defined than “the existence of general societal discrimination.”

Assemblyman Chris Holden, who coauthored AB 979, said research showed racial, ethnic and sexual minority groups were systematically excluded from corporate boards.

“No surprise!” Holden said in a statement about the lawsuit. “Some would rather maintain a status quo that doesn’t embrace diversity and inclusion.”

The lawsuit seeks to an order declaring it illegal to spend state funds to ensure companies comply with the law and to prevent the law from taking effect.

“California’s government has a penchant for quotas that are brazenly unconstitutional,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “Gender quotas and now new quotas for numerous other groups for corporate boards are slaps in the face to the core American value of equal protection under the law.”

Source Article

Continue reading

Group sues to block California boardroom diversity law

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A conservative legal group announced Monday that it sued to block California’s first-in-the-nation law that requires hundreds of corporations based in the state to have directors from racial or sexual minorities on their boards.

Judicial Watch claimed in the suit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court that the law is unconstitutional.

“The legislation’s requirement that certain corporations appoint a specific number of directors based upon race, ethnicity, sexual preference, and transgender status is immediately suspect and presumptively invalid and triggers strict scrutiny review by the court,” the group said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill last week saying it was crucial to fighting racial injustice by giving minorities “seats at the table” of corporate power.

California already has a law requiring corporations to have at least one female director on their boards. Judicial Watch is also challenging that law in court and a trial is scheduled next summer.


The new measure cited statistics showing few of the 662 public corporations headquartered in California had Blacks or Latinos on their boards.

The measure requires at least two directors from different racial or sexual minority groups be appointed to boards with four to nine directors by the end of 2022. Three directors are required for boards with nine or more directors.

Firms that don’t comply would face fines of $100,00 for first violations and $300,000 for repeated violations.

Those who qualify would self-identify as Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Alaska Native, or as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

The lawsuit notes that a Senate analysis said the bill draws distinctions based on race and ethnicity, and therefore is “suspect.”

The group said the law is unconstitutional because the quotas don’t achieve a compelling governmental interest that is more narrowly defined than “the existence of general societal discrimination.”

Assemblyman Chris Holden, who coauthored AB 979, said research showed racial, ethnic and sexual minority groups were systematically excluded from corporate boards.

“No surprise!” Holden said in a statement about the lawsuit. “Some would rather maintain a status quo that doesn’t embrace diversity and inclusion.”

The lawsuit seeks to an order declaring it illegal to spend state funds to ensure companies comply with the law and to prevent the law from taking effect.

“California’s government has a penchant for quotas that are brazenly unconstitutional,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “Gender quotas and now new quotas for numerous other groups for corporate boards are slaps in the face to the core American value of equal protection under the law.”

Source Article

Continue reading

U.S. government appeals judge’s ruling to block WeChat app store ban

By David Shepardson



FILE PHOTO: The messenger app WeChat is seen among U.S. flags in this illustration picture


© Reuters/Florence Lo
FILE PHOTO: The messenger app WeChat is seen among U.S. flags in this illustration picture


WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department on Friday said it was appealing a judge’s decision to block the government from barring Apple Inc and Alphabet Inc’s Google from offering Chinese-owned messaging app WeChat for download in U.S. app stores.

The government said it was appealing the Sept. 19 preliminary junction issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The injunction blocked the U.S. Commerce Department order, which would also bar other U.S. transactions with Tencent Holding’s WeChat, potentially making the app unusable in the United States.

Loading...

Load Error

A U.S. spokesman for Tencent did not immediately comment.

The Justice Department said earlier that Beeler’s order was in error and “permits the continued, unfettered use of WeChat, a mobile application that the Executive Branch has determined constitutes a threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

Lawyers for the U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, the group behind the legal challenge to the WeChat ban, said on Friday the department “has still presented no compelling national security interest to justify such an unprecedented ban” and will oppose the effort.

The group noted Tencent tried to negotiate a settlement with the Commerce Department and offered a number of mitigation measures to address data security concerns.

Beeler said WeChat users “have shown serious questions going to the merits of the First Amendment claim.” The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech.

WeChat has had an average of 19 million daily active users in the United States, analytics firms Apptopia said in early August. It is popular among Chinese students, Americans living in China and some Americans who have personal or business relationships in China.

WeChat is an all-in-one mobile app that combines services similar to Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Venmo. The app is an essential part of daily life for many in China and boasts more than 1 billion users.

On Sunday, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington issued a similar preliminary injunction to halt the U.S. app store ban on new TikTok downloads. Nichols has not decided whether to block other restrictions set to take effect on Nov. 12 that could effectively ban the app’s use, pending a series of court filings due by Oct. 30.

(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Jonathan Oatis and Paul Simao)

Continue Reading

Source Article

Continue reading