Aurelia Butler

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Top U.S. House Republican Kevin McCarthy could face an untimely end to his role as speaker if party hardliners oust him, for averting a costly government shutdown on Saturday with a stopgap bill that drew more support from Democrats than Republicans. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted 335-91 to adopt a 45-day stopgap measure hours before funding for federal agencies was set to expire. The Democratic-led Senate later approved the same bill with bipartisan support and sent it to President Joe Biden to sign into law. But soon after the House action, hardline Republican conservatives began targeting McCarthy’s role as speaker, claiming he had scored a victory for the “Uniparty” of Washington.”Should he remain Speaker of the House?” Republican Representative Andy Biggs, a leading hardliner, asked on the social platform X, formerly known as Twitter.McCarthy decided to bring a vote on a measure that could win Democratic support, knowing full well that it could jeopardize his job. One of his advisers told Reuters the speaker believed some hardliners would try to oust him under any circumstances. “Go ahead and try,” McCarthy said in comments directed at his opponents on Saturday. “You know what? If I have to risk my job for standing up for the American public, I will do that.” The bipartisan measure succeeded a day after Biggs and 20 other hardliners blocked a Republican stopgap bill that contained sharp spending cuts and immigration and border restrictions, all of which hardliners favor.The Republican bill’s failure ended that party’s hopes of moving a conservative measure and opened the door to the bipartisan measure that was backed by 209 House Democrats and 126 Republicans. Ninety Republicans opposed the stopgap.Hardliners complained that the measure, known as a continuing resolution, or CR, left in place policies favored by Democrats including Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “Kevin McCarthy put a CR on the Floor that got 209 Democrat votes, since it kept in place the Biden-Pelosi-Schumer policies that are destroying the country and the spending levels that are bankrupting us,” hardline Representative Bob Good said on X. Under an agreement McCarthy reached with hardliners to become speaker in January, just one lawmaker can set his potential ouster in motion by moving to “vacate the chair.”Republican Representative Matt Gaetz, who has openly threatened such action, made clear what it would take days before the Saturday vote. “One thing I know. If Kevin McCarthy uses Democrat votes in the House of Representatives to advance Joe Biden’s spending priorities, he cannot remain as the Republican speaker,” the Florida Republican told the far-right channel Real America’s Voice on Wednesday. It was not clear what action Democrats might take if a Republican moved to vacate the chair and the House voted on the measure.Republican Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, who co-chairs the bipartisan Problem Solvers’ Caucus, said bipartisanship itself would be the real issue in any vote on McCarthy’s future.”The motion to vacate will come … and the question will be: are we going to punish or reward leaders who put two-party solutions on the floor? That is squarely the question,” Fitzpatrick told reporters.Some Democrats have suggested they could support McCarthy if an ouster attempt occurred at a turbulent time. Others have suggested they could back a moderate Republican willing to share the gavel with them and allow power-sharing within House committees. Others have shown no interest in helping any speaker candidate aside from House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries. “That’s his problem,” Democratic Representative Jim McGovern said of McCarthy. “I vote for Hakeem Jeffries for speaker.” “People have asked about making a deal with them. But I’m not a cheap date. I’m an expensive date.” More

(Reuters) -A federal appeals court on Saturday blocked a venture capital fund from moving forward with a program that awards funding to businesses run by Black women in a case by the anti-affirmative action activist behind the successful U.S. Supreme Court challenge to race-conscious college admissions policies.The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 vote granted a request by Edward Blum’s American Alliance for Equal Rights to temporarily block Fearless Fund from considering applications for grants only from businesses led by Black women.Blum’s group asked the court to do so while it appealed a judge’s Tuesday ruling denying it a preliminary injunction blocking Fearless Fund from moving forward with its “racially exclusive program.” Grant applications were due Saturday.The judges in the majority, U.S. Circuit Judges Robert Luck and Andrew Brasher, agreed with Blum’s group that Fearless Fund’s “racially exclusionary” grant program likely violated Section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, a Civil War-era law that bars racial bias in contracting.U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash earlier this week concluded that under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment’s free speech protections, Fearless Fund had a right to express its belief in the importance of Black women to the economy through charity.But the appeals court’s majority, comprised of two appointees of Republican former President Donald Trump, said the First Amendment “does not give the defendants the right to exclude persons from a contractual regime based on race.”Blum in a statement said his group was “gratified that the 11th Circuit has recognized the likelihood that the Fearless Strivers Grant Contest is illegal.” Defense lawyers said they planned to seek further appellate review.”We remain committed to defending our clients’ meaningful work,” said Jason Schwartz, a lawyer for Fearless Fund.Fearless Fund describes itself as “built by women of color for women of color.”The lawsuit is one of three that Blum’s Texas-based group has filed since August challenging grant and fellowship programs designed by the venture capital fund and two law firms to help give Black, Hispanic and other underrepresented minority groups greater career opportunities.A different group founded by Blum, who is white, was behind the litigation that led to the June decision, powered by the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, declaring unlawful race-conscious student admissions policies used by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.According to the Fearless Fund, businesses owned by Black women in 2022 received less than 1% of the $288 billion that venture capital firms deployed.The fund aims to address that disparity, and counts JPMorgan Chase (NYSE:JPM), Bank of America and MasterCard as investors. It has invested nearly $27 million in 40 businesses led by minority women since its founding in 2019.It also provides grants, and Blum’s lawsuit took aim at its Fearless Strivers Grant Contest, which awards Black women who own small businesses $20,000 in grants and other resources to grow their businesses.The fund argued Blum was trying to “turn a seminal civil rights statute on its head” by suing it under a Civil War-era law enacted to protect formerly enslaved Black people from racial bias.U.S. Circuit Judge Charles Wilson, an appointee of Democratic former President Bill Clinton, in a dissenting opinion on Saturday called it a “perversion” of Congress’ intent to use that law against a remedial program like Fearless Fund’s. More