Disney shareholders rejected a proposal that would see the company cut ties with the Human Rights Commission, a LGBTQ rights organization.

The “Request to Cease CEI Participation” proposal, if enacted, would see Disney end participation in the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index, which rates companies on their friendliness towards the LGBTQ community. Ratings are determined via surveys submitted to the HRC. Companies are rated on nondiscrimination policies, benefits for LGBTQ workers, corporate culture and social responsibility. The Walt Disney Co. currently holds a perfect 100 score, and has since 2007.

The proposal was submitted by the National Center for Public Policy Research, through its Free Enterprise Project initiative, according to Variety.

READ MORE: Tim Walz Mocks Anti-LGBTQ Book Bans During HRC Speech

“The threat of a bad score is wielded against corporations to force them to do the political bidding of HRC and others (like GLSEN, the Trevor Project and GLAAD, which Disney also has paid partnerships with) that seek to sow gender confusion in children, encourage irreversible surgical procedures on confused teens, effectively eliminate girls’ and women’s sports and bathrooms, and roll back longstanding religious liberties,” the proposal read in part, according to Deadline.

Only 7% of shareholders voted to approve the proposal, Deadline reported. The HRC celebrated the news.

“This vote gives us a clear statement of values from Disney’s shareholders. They know what we know – that despite all the noise, commitments to inclusion pay figurative dividends and help their literal bottom line,” Eric Bloem, Vice President of Corporate Citizenship at the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, said in a statement.

Proposals like this are part of a anti-DEI campaign against a number of large corporations. Right-wing activist Robby Starbuck has been a particularly loud campaigner in getting companies to cut ties with the HRC, according to LGBTQ Nation.

“This group, the HRC, fuels the wokeness in Corporate America via their CEI scoring system where companies bend over backwards to get a 100% score. Many even hire a special health care concierge for LGBTQ employees and fund transitions for children of employees in order to get their 100% CEI score,” Starbuck wrote on X (formerly Twitter) last year.

“To get their 100% score, they essentially have to worship at the altar of left wing policy. Over the coming months, with the help of some great whistleblowers, we will expose every element of these disgusting practices. Now is the time to name and shame every single company who associates with this open hatred of conservative consumers.”

Though Disney did not make a particular comment beyond saying that the proposal was “not approved,” Costco officials had harsh words when they were faced with a similar proposal brought before shareholders by the same group.

“The proponent professes concern about legal and financial risks to the Company and its shareholders associated with the diversity initiatives. The supporting statement demonstrates that it is the proponent and others that are responsible for inflicting burdens on companies with their challenges to longstanding diversity programs. The proponent’s broader agenda is not reducing risk for the Company but abolition of diversity initiatives,” Costco’s board of directors wrote in a statement urging shareholders to vote against the proposal.

Image by Eric Philbin via Wikimedia Commons, used under Creative Commons license.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on Thursday that, if convicted, the Tesla vandals who lit the electric cars and charging stations ablaze could get up to 20 years in prison.

“The days of committing crimes without consequence have ended,” Bondi said. “Let this be a warning: if you join this wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla properties, the Department of Justice will put you behind bars.”

Bondi announced the charges against three alleged Tesla vandals. All of the defendants are accused of using Molotov cocktails. Two defendants, one in Salem, Oregon and another in Loveland, Colorado, allegedly attacked Tesla dealerships. A third allegedly burned Tesla charging stations in Charleston, South Carolina.

READ MORE: Fox News Reporter Challenges Trump on Promoting Tesla While Americans Are ‘Struggling’

Though Bondi’s statement did not identify any of the defendants or reveal the charges levied against them, the Department of Justice said the penalty ranged from five to 20 years in prison. Bondi has previously characterized the attacks on Tesla dealerships as “nothing short of domestic terrorism” according to ABC News.

The three anonymous defendants cited by Bondi are not the only alleged Tesla vandals. Earlier this week, a Tesla service center in Las Vegas was hit, as was a dealership in Kansas City, Missouri according to Electrek.

Tesla dealerships have seen an increase of protests as many left-leaning figures are calling for boycotts against the company. Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, is also the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Despite the name, DOGE is not an official department of the U.S. government, as it was not established by Congress. DOGE is behind the recent mass firings of government workers.

Outside of the peaceful protests, vandals have spray-painted anti-DOGE and anti-Tesla graffiti on Tesla cars and dealerships. The number of arsons at dealerships has also been increasing of late, leading Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner to suggest that arsonists could face the death penalty, according to Mediaite.

“What happens if there’s someone in one of these cars they blow up? That can happen! That becomes murder! Or worse. Terrorism plus! And I know that on January 20th, the president signed into law, into, through an executive order, restoring the death penalty. Do you think this sort of thing… And I hate to think it! People leave their children and pets in cars. I mean, you don’t know! This is deadly dangerous stuff these liberal protesters are playing with!” Faulkner said.

There have been no reports of Teslas being lit on fire with anyone nearby. The Teslas set on fire have primarily been at dealerships after business hours, times when no one would be in the cars, making Faulkner’s scenario unlikely.

Image via Reuters

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) vowed to file legislation stopping federal district judges from ruling on orders issued by President Donald Trump. He claims it’s outside of their jurisdiction—but the Constitution disagrees.

On Wednesday, Hawley appeared on The Charlie Kirk Show to slam district judges who have issued injunctions against the Trump administration’s acts, including the mass firings of federal workers and the rollback of DEI initiatives.

“These are district courts, local federal courts, that are saying, ‘I’m not just going to issue an order that says what the executive branch can or cannot do in my district, I’m going to issue an order that binds the executive branch for the entire nation,'” Hawley said.

READ MORE: Conservative Rains Hell on ‘Dishonest’ and ‘Scummy’ Josh Hawley

“That is not a power that I think district courts have… what needs to happen is one of two things: Either the Supreme Court needs to intervene and make clear there’s only one court that can issue rules for the whole country, that’s the Supreme Court, that’s why we only have one of them. And or, if they won’t do that, Congress needs to legislate and make clear that district courts do not have the ability to issue these kinds of injunctions.”

Sen. Josh Hawley SLAMS local district court judges issuing national injunctions on the Trump admin, calls for SCOTUS or Congress to intervene:

"These are district courts, local federal courts, that are saying, 'I'm not just going to issue an order that says what the executive… https://t.co/e1lzI3cSP5 pic.twitter.com/0KzcpkkxnW

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 19, 2025

On Thursday, Hawley vowed on X (formerly Twitter) to file legislation that would strip power from district court judges, keeping them from issuing these sorts of injunctions.

“District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration – a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good,” he wrote, declining to include any details on what that legislation may look like.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution lays out the American judicial system. While the Supreme Court is the final authority, it is primarily an appellate court—meaning that lower courts make initial rulings which are then appealed up the chain. The Supreme Court can only be the original court in cases involving “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party,” the Constitution reads.

District Courts are the lowest level of federal courts, and there are 94 of them throughout the U.S., with each state getting at least one, as well as the District of Columbia. Much like the state courts, district courts hear criminal cases—when federal crimes have been committed—as well as civil cases. Civil cases deal with legal and constitutional conflicts; the type of cases Hawley is referring to here.

As an example, let’s look at the recent case involving Trump’s attempt to ban transgender people from serving in the military. In a case like this, the judge can issue an injunction, which puts Trump’s order on hold, until it can be heard by the courts.

It all starts with a lawsuit—in this case, Talbott v. Trump. Talbott was initially filed by six active service members and another two people who wanted to enlist. The plaintiffs said that Trump’s executive order would keep them out of the military illegally; the defendant, the Department of Justice, disagrees, saying the order is legal.

Whether or not to issue an injunction is up to the particular judge. If the judge declines to issue an injunction, the government could continue to act on Trump’s EO. In this particular case, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes put an initial injunction on the order earlier this week. This keeps everything in a holding pattern; transgender people can remain in the military until the case is decided.

Given Reyes’ comments, it’s likely that she will rule that the EO is illegal. If the Justice Department chooses not to appeal the ruling, it will stand just as if the Supreme Court ruled on it. Of course, this is unlikely—the DOJ will almost certainly appeal. The case then heads to one of the 13 appellate courts.

Appellate courts review the original ruling. Often, both sides are given a brief time to argue their case—usually 15 minutes, according to the official U.S. Courts webpage—but not always. Sometimes, appellate courts look only at the written briefs in the case. Unlike district courts, appellate courts are ruled over by a panel of judges rather than just one.

The judicial panel will decide whether or not the original judge made an error in legal reasoning. The appellate court can decide whether to let the decision stand, to overturn it, or to send the case back to the district courts.

In this case, if Reyes rules in favor of the plaintiffs, and the appellate court upholds her ruling, the injunction keeping trans people in the military still stands. If the appellate court overturns the ruling, the injunction may still stand, if the plaintiffs decide to appeal. If the plaintiffs don’t choose to appeal, then the injunction would be lifted and Trump’s EO would be reinstated.

Either party can file a “writ of certiorari”, which asks that the Supreme Court to decide the case. So, in Talbott, it’s likely that either way the appellate court rules, either the DOJ or the plaintiffs would ask the Supreme Court to weigh in. The injunction would still stand until the Supreme Court either declines to take the case, or ultimately rules on it. At that point, whatever the Supreme Court decides would stand.

Image via Shutterstock