 |
|
|
|||||
Danish offshore wind developer Orsted can restart work on the nearly finished Revolution Wind project off the coast of Rhode Island, a federal judge ruled on Monday, after President Donald Trump’s administration halted the project last month. The ruling is a legal setback for Trump, who has sought to block the expansion of offshore wind in U.S. waters. It is a palpable victory for Orsted, which has been losing $2 million a day since the project was halted on August 22. Revolution Wind is located 15 miles off the coast. Once completed, it is expected to produce enough electricity to power 350,000 homes in Rhode Island and Connecticut. Orsted’s U.S.-listed shares were up nearly 9% at $11.60 following the ruling by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth. The U.S. Interior Department said it would continue to review the project while work proceeds. “As a result of the Courts decision today, Revolution Wind will be able to resume construction as BOEM (the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management) continues its investigation into possible impacts by the project to national security and prevention of other uses on the Outer Continental Shelf,” an Interior spokesperson said. Attorneys for the Trump administration had argued that the project, located off the coast of Rhode Island, failed to comply with conditions of its permit related to conflicts with national security and scientific ocean surveys. Revolution Wind disputed those claims. At the end of a two-hour court hearing in Washington, Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction that blocks the Trump administration from enforcing the order to halt construction. Lamberth, a senior judge appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, said the Trump administration had offered contradictory reasons for issuing its stop work order, and that the explanations offered weeks after the halt were the height of arbitrary and capricious government conduct. He also said Revolution Wind had reasonably relied on government assurances that were withdrawn without due process, imperiling a $5 billion investment. If Revolution Wind cannot meet benchmark deadlines, the entire project could collapse, Lamberth said. There is no doubt in my mind of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs. Orsted and its joint venture partner Skyborn Renewables had asked for a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit they filed earlier this month challenging the U.S. Interior Department’s stop-work order. “Revolution Wind will resume impacted construction work as soon as possible, with safety as the top priority,” an Orsted spokesperson said in a statement, adding that it would continue to seek a resolution with the administration. Rhode Island and Connecticut have also sued the administration over the stop work order. Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont issued a statement praising the ruling. “Todays ruling allowing Revolution Wind to resume work is extremely encouraging for workers and our energy future. We will continue to engage with the federal government on a durable path forward for this project and on shared energy priorities, Lamont said. Jan Wolfe and Nichola Groom, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
The U.S. Supreme Court sided again on Monday with Donald Trump, allowing the Republican president to fire a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commissionfor nowdespite Congress providing job protections for this post. The court blocked an order by Washington-based U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan that had shielded Rebecca Slaughter, who had sued to challenge Trump’s action, from being dismissed from the consumer protection and antitrust agency prior to her term expiring. The Supreme Court also announced on Monday that it will hear arguments in the case in December. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from Monday’s order letting Trump remove Slaughter for now. Chief Justice John Roberts on September 8 had paused AliKhan’s orderallowing Trump to keep Slaughter out of her postto give the court more time to consider the administration’s request concerning the judge’s order. The dispute centers on Trump’s power to dismiss government agency heads covered by removal protections that Congress put in place to give certain agencies a degree of independence from presidential control. Federal law permits a president to remove FTC commissioners only for causesuch as inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in officebut not for policy differences. Similar protections cover officials at other independent agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. Slaughter was one of two Democratic commissioners who Trump moved to fire in March. The firings drew sharp criticism from Democratic senators and antimonopoly groups concerned that the move was designed to eliminate opposition within the agency to big corporations. AliKhan in July blocked Trump’s firing of Slaughter, rejecting the Trump administration’s argument that the tenure protections unlawfully encroach on presidential power. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 2 in a 2-1 decision kept the judge’s ruling in place. The lower courts ruled that the statutory protections shielding FTC members from being removed without cause conform with the U.S. Constitution in light of a 1935 Supreme Court precedent in a case called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. In that case, the court ruled that a president lacks unfettered power to remove FTC commissioners, faulting then-President Franklin Roosevelt’s firing of an FTC commissioner for policy differences. The Trump administration in its Supreme Court filing in Slaughter’s case argued that “the modern FTC exercises far more substantial powers than the 1935 FTC,” and thus its members can be fired at will by the president. ‘A story of continuity’ Lawyers for Slaughter in court papers pushed back against that contention, arguing that the FTC’s development over the decades is “a story of continuity, not transformation.” “As both courts below found and numerous courts have agreed, the FTC has not ‘outgrown’ Humphrey’s Executor,” they wrote. In May, the Supreme Court allowed Trump’s dismissals at the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Boarddespite the job protections for these postswhile litigation challenging those removals proceeded. The court in that ruling said the Constitution gives the president wide latitude to fire government officials who wield executive power on his behalf, and that the administration “is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power.” Citing that rationale in July, the court also allowed Trump to remove three Democratic members of the U.S. government’s top consumer product safety watchdog while a legal challenge to their removal proceeds. The dissenting liberal justices on Monday criticized the court’s majority for allowing Trump to fire Slaughteras well as other members of independent agencieswithout cause, despite Supreme Court precedent restricting the president’s ability to do so. “Yet the majority, stay order by stay order, has handed full control of all those agencies to the President. He may now removeso says the majority, though Congress said differentlyany member he wishes, for any reason or no reason at all. And he may thereby extinguish the agencies’ bipartisanship and independence,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the three liberals. The administration has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to allow implementation of Trump policies impeded by lower courts. The Supreme Court has sided with the administration in almost every case that it has been called upon to review since Trump returned to the presidency in January. Trump’s administration also asked the Supreme Court last Thursday to let him move ahead with firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cooka move without precedent since the central bank’s founding in 1913in a legal battle that could imperil the Fed’s independence. Since the removal of Slaughter and her fellow Democratic commissioner in March, the FTC has operated for most of that time with three Republicans and no Democratic members. The agency has pursued conservative agenda items in recent months, including holding a workshop on what it called the dangers of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. The FTC warned Google that filtering Republican fundraising emails as spam could be unlawful and sought to investigate media watchdogs accused by Elon Musk of helping orchestrate advertiser boycotts of his social media platform X. John Kruzel, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
Salad and Go, a chain of salad restaurants that are popular in the west and Southwest, has just closed 41 locations in two states. Known for hearty bowls like the southwest harvest and fajita salads, the chain stands out thanks to its bright orange branding and menu items that are chock-full of quality ingredients. Unfortunately, it seems that it might have over-expanded since its founding in 2013 in Gilbert, Arizona. The closures are taking place in Texas and Oklahoma, but both of those states will still have open stores, Salad and Go said. Locations in Arizona and Nevada will remain open as well. Which Salad and Go locations are closing? According to the company, the following locations have closed as of Friday, September 19: Texas: 14909 Coit Rd, Dallas, TX 75248 12556 N Beach St, Fort Worth, TX 76244 8900 N Tarrant Pkwy, North Richland Hills, TX 76182 4620 W University Dr, Prosper, TX 75078 9500 Summer Creek Dr, Crowley, TX 76036 4509 W Bailey Boswell Rd, Fort Worth, TX 76179 3064 N Goliad St, Rockwall, TX 75087 355 Lebanon Road, Frisco, TX 75034 11150 US 380, Cross Roads, TX 76227 830 SW Wilshire Blvd, Burleson, TX 76028 3401 Midway Rd, Plano, TX 75093 1102 W Main St, Lewisville, TX 75067 1460 S Ferguson Pkwy, Anna, TX 75409 1201 Flower Mound Road, Flower Mound, TX 75028 430 S FM 548, Forney, TX, 75126 3416 TX-114 Fort Worth, TX 76177 2120 Rio Grande Blvd, Euless, TX 76039 822 W Princeton Dr., Princeton, TX 75047 Oklahoma: 6501 N May Ave, Oklahoma City, OK 73116 2325 E 71st Street, Tulsa, OK 74136 11360 East 96th Street N, Owasso, OK 74055 ‘This moment is difficult’ The bigger takeaway is perhaps that the chain was able to maintain a presence in its most popular areasand CEO Mike Tattersfield seems hopeful about the future. In a statement to Fast Company, Tattersfield explained that while the closures represent a very difficult decision because it impacts team members who have shown extraordinary passion and commitment in serving our guests, they also provide the chain with the opportunity to further invest in the locations that are performing well. Concentrating our efforts will allow us to strengthen the brand and invest more in improving quality, driving innovation and building community, Tattersfield said in the statement. While this moment is difficult, we know the change will ultimately give us the foundation we need to grow stronger and make delicious, nutritious food accessible to all. A number of specialty food chains have scaled back their physical footprints this year as foot traffic at quick-service restaurants has slumped. In 2024, former Salad and Go CEO Charlie Morrison spoke to CNBC about his goals for the company, which resulted in him more than doubling the number of Salad and Go locations. Consumers have remained price conscious more broadly, with many dining out less. Sweetgreen, a larger and pricier competitor to Salad and Go, saw its same-store sales drop 7.6% in the second quarter of this year after falling 3.1% in the quarter before that. While Salad and Go had been able to keep much of its overhead costs low due to the fact that it didnt have industrial kitchen equipment on-site, its low $7 target price point for the salads appears to come with its own set of challenges.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||