SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The New York Times office building is located at 620 8th Avenue in New York City. (Photo: mbbirdy/Getty Images)
Over 1,000 New York Times workers are planning a full-day walkout and afternoon rally on Thursday, December 8 amid ongoing negotiations with newspaper management about pay and healthcare contributions.
Times Guild members, represented by the NewsGuild of New York, are pushing for a $65,000 salary floor and "funding employees' health insurance sustainably."
"There was good news and bad news after 12 hours of bargaining yesterday. Our collective action is working: Management backed off its attempt to kill our pension and agreed to expand fertility benefits," the member-led Times Guild account tweeted Wednesday.
"But management still barely budged on some of our most important priorities. The company is stuck on paltry pay increases, eroding the minimum pay scales for new hires, and contributing less to our healthcare fund than they currently do," the union added. "That's why tomorrow's walkout is, for now, still on."
\u201cI'll be walking out tomorrow. I'm disappointed that it has come to this and hope that management will do better. I'm grateful to work at the New York Times but my colleagues and I deserve to be compensated fairly.\u201d— Priya Krishna (@Priya Krishna) 1670439900
"The Times Guild represents journalists, as well as ad sales workers, comment moderators, news assistants, security guards, and staffers at the Times Center, the venue and virtual production studio," according to a union statement. "All workers who signed the walkout pledge are anticipated to participate in the one-day work stoppage, with some major desks losing 90% of their workforce that day, and other departments being essentially empty of guild employees."
Times sports reporter Jenny Vrentas said Tuesday that "we know that our readers are best served when our workplace is equitable and the people who make The New York Times are paid fairly."
"We had hoped to reach a fair deal before our deadline," Vrentas noted, "but more than 1,100 of us are ready to take a stand together, for each other and for journalists everywhere."
\u201cThe New York Times is bracing for a historic mass walkout by more than 1,000 newsroom workers tomorrow, Thursday, as contract negotiations go down to the wire.\n\nA major sticking point is that the NYT's pay offer will leave the workers far behind inflation\nhttps://t.co/4qGT8kVZtQ\u201d— Steven Greenhouse (@Steven Greenhouse) 1670428051
Chief film critic A.O. Scott explained that "I've worked at the New York Times for almost 23 years--most of my adult life. It's not just my job: the values and principles of the paper are part of who I am, and I know the same is true for many of my co-workers."
"In hard times, we were willing to sacrifice to ensure the paper's survival, and we push ourselves and one another every day to make sure the Times lives up to its highest ideals," Scott continued. "That's why it's so dismaying to see our concerns and aspirations treated so dismissively by management, and our contributions disrespected. Stepping away from my work isn't something I take lightly--I care about it too much for that. But I'd like to believe that the Times cares about it too, and about all the hard work that makes the daily miracle possible."
NewsGuild of New York president Susan DeCarava highlighted that it has been decades since employees at the U.S. "paper of record" have taken similar action.
"Guild members at The New York Times are determined to ensure that, through collective action, the company lives up to its mission when it comes to all the workers responsible for its meteoric success during the past several years," said DeCarava. "The New York Times, which has not seen a work stoppage of this scale since the '70s, is on notice. Our members understand the value of their labor, and it's time for Times management to demonstrate the same."
As Shawn McCreesh wrote for Intelligencer earlier this month:
There was a one-hour walkout over a lapsed contract in 2011, and another quick afternoon walkout in 2017 over copy editors being eliminated. But those were mostly shows of solidarity. What the employees are preparing to do next week would be something not seen at the paper of record since 1978. Picture it: a full day without The New York Times. No one covering the tumult in Guangzhou or inside Buckingham Palace or what our president is saying. From midnight to midnight, no reporting, no filing stories, no podcasting, no comment moderating, and definitely no responding to editors' queries. There would be no live briefings. (You'd be shocked at how many people it takes to produce one of those things.) Even logging into Oak (that's their CMS) will be seen as scabby. Reporters tell me they're ready to picket outside the building, too. ("There will be plenty of photo ops," muses one.) Sure, masthead myrmidons will have enough copy in the hopper to keep that homepage humming for a little while, and it's not as though the app on your phone will suddenly go blank. But the walkout threat is a marked escalation from an ordinarily fissiparous newsroom. It's the sort of stunt that precedes an actual sustained strike.
"Obviously the next step, if we can't get anywhere at the negotiating table, is to consider things like a strike authorization vote," says reporter Michael Powell, adding that "none of us want to step into the terra incognita if this isn't seen as a significant warning shot." Senior staff editor Tom Coffey has been at the Times since 1997 and says, "I think this is the worst I've seen it since the staff mutiny that led to Howell Raines being fired."
Coffey is scheduled to speak Thursday at the 1:00 pm ET rally at the newspaper's building in New York City, along with Vrentas and journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, who both hold union positions.
Hundreds of New York Times Tech Guild members are also planning to join the public event--which comes amid a national resurgence of labor organizing.
\u201cAfter 20 months of negotiations, enough is enough. Times Guild members deserve a fair contract that reflects their contribution to the company's success.\u201d— New York Times Tech Guild (@New York Times Tech Guild) 1670357142
"We've also experienced a pattern of bad faith tactics since we began bargaining," the tech union tweeted Tuesday. "We've put in countless hours to draft good faith proposals and ensure transparency. Management has responded with the bare minimum and engaged in a pattern of disrespect towards our collective rights."
"In addition to stalling bargaining, senior leaders have continued to downplay and neglect systemic issues at the [Times] like patterns of discrimination in discipline, pay, remote work, and other policies," the group continued, adding that the newspaper's "approach to bargaining is not only disrespectful, it's illegal" and calling on leadership to "negotiate in good faith."
In a statement to The Hill on Wednesday, the newspaper said that "while we are disappointed that the NewsGuild is threatening to strike, we are prepared to ensure the Times continues to serve our readers without disruption."
"We remain committed to working with the NYT NewsGuild to reach a contract that we can all be proud of," the newspaper continued. "Our current wage proposal offers significant increases. The majority of members of the bargaining unit would earn 50% or more in additional earnings over the life of the new contract than they would have if the old contract had continued. Moreover, our accompanying medical and retirement proposals offer sustainable, best-in-class options for guild members."
Other journalists, unionized workers, and groups have expressed solidarity with the Times Guild members who plan to walk off the job at midnight--including the Alphabet Workers Union, which said that "we got your back, and won't dare cross the picket line."
\u201cEquity members in NYC! Wear red and stand in solidarity with the members of @NYTimesGuild @nyguild and @newsguild tomorrow at 1PM!\nSee details below.\u201d— Actors' Equity (@Actors' Equity) 1670440206
New York transit reporter Ana Ley said Wednesday that the Times "has chosen to dock our pay for walking out--an act that will mostly hurt the employees that the company pays least. I find that unacceptable, and I hope you'll join us for this Thursday's rally."
Times political reporter Maggie Astor tweeted that "we're asking readers to stand with us on the digital picket line and not visit any NYT platforms tomorrow. Read local news. Make something from a cookbook. Break your Wordle streak."
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Over 1,000 New York Times workers are planning a full-day walkout and afternoon rally on Thursday, December 8 amid ongoing negotiations with newspaper management about pay and healthcare contributions.
Times Guild members, represented by the NewsGuild of New York, are pushing for a $65,000 salary floor and "funding employees' health insurance sustainably."
"There was good news and bad news after 12 hours of bargaining yesterday. Our collective action is working: Management backed off its attempt to kill our pension and agreed to expand fertility benefits," the member-led Times Guild account tweeted Wednesday.
"But management still barely budged on some of our most important priorities. The company is stuck on paltry pay increases, eroding the minimum pay scales for new hires, and contributing less to our healthcare fund than they currently do," the union added. "That's why tomorrow's walkout is, for now, still on."
\u201cI'll be walking out tomorrow. I'm disappointed that it has come to this and hope that management will do better. I'm grateful to work at the New York Times but my colleagues and I deserve to be compensated fairly.\u201d— Priya Krishna (@Priya Krishna) 1670439900
"The Times Guild represents journalists, as well as ad sales workers, comment moderators, news assistants, security guards, and staffers at the Times Center, the venue and virtual production studio," according to a union statement. "All workers who signed the walkout pledge are anticipated to participate in the one-day work stoppage, with some major desks losing 90% of their workforce that day, and other departments being essentially empty of guild employees."
Times sports reporter Jenny Vrentas said Tuesday that "we know that our readers are best served when our workplace is equitable and the people who make The New York Times are paid fairly."
"We had hoped to reach a fair deal before our deadline," Vrentas noted, "but more than 1,100 of us are ready to take a stand together, for each other and for journalists everywhere."
\u201cThe New York Times is bracing for a historic mass walkout by more than 1,000 newsroom workers tomorrow, Thursday, as contract negotiations go down to the wire.\n\nA major sticking point is that the NYT's pay offer will leave the workers far behind inflation\nhttps://t.co/4qGT8kVZtQ\u201d— Steven Greenhouse (@Steven Greenhouse) 1670428051
Chief film critic A.O. Scott explained that "I've worked at the New York Times for almost 23 years--most of my adult life. It's not just my job: the values and principles of the paper are part of who I am, and I know the same is true for many of my co-workers."
"In hard times, we were willing to sacrifice to ensure the paper's survival, and we push ourselves and one another every day to make sure the Times lives up to its highest ideals," Scott continued. "That's why it's so dismaying to see our concerns and aspirations treated so dismissively by management, and our contributions disrespected. Stepping away from my work isn't something I take lightly--I care about it too much for that. But I'd like to believe that the Times cares about it too, and about all the hard work that makes the daily miracle possible."
NewsGuild of New York president Susan DeCarava highlighted that it has been decades since employees at the U.S. "paper of record" have taken similar action.
"Guild members at The New York Times are determined to ensure that, through collective action, the company lives up to its mission when it comes to all the workers responsible for its meteoric success during the past several years," said DeCarava. "The New York Times, which has not seen a work stoppage of this scale since the '70s, is on notice. Our members understand the value of their labor, and it's time for Times management to demonstrate the same."
As Shawn McCreesh wrote for Intelligencer earlier this month:
There was a one-hour walkout over a lapsed contract in 2011, and another quick afternoon walkout in 2017 over copy editors being eliminated. But those were mostly shows of solidarity. What the employees are preparing to do next week would be something not seen at the paper of record since 1978. Picture it: a full day without The New York Times. No one covering the tumult in Guangzhou or inside Buckingham Palace or what our president is saying. From midnight to midnight, no reporting, no filing stories, no podcasting, no comment moderating, and definitely no responding to editors' queries. There would be no live briefings. (You'd be shocked at how many people it takes to produce one of those things.) Even logging into Oak (that's their CMS) will be seen as scabby. Reporters tell me they're ready to picket outside the building, too. ("There will be plenty of photo ops," muses one.) Sure, masthead myrmidons will have enough copy in the hopper to keep that homepage humming for a little while, and it's not as though the app on your phone will suddenly go blank. But the walkout threat is a marked escalation from an ordinarily fissiparous newsroom. It's the sort of stunt that precedes an actual sustained strike.
"Obviously the next step, if we can't get anywhere at the negotiating table, is to consider things like a strike authorization vote," says reporter Michael Powell, adding that "none of us want to step into the terra incognita if this isn't seen as a significant warning shot." Senior staff editor Tom Coffey has been at the Times since 1997 and says, "I think this is the worst I've seen it since the staff mutiny that led to Howell Raines being fired."
Coffey is scheduled to speak Thursday at the 1:00 pm ET rally at the newspaper's building in New York City, along with Vrentas and journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, who both hold union positions.
Hundreds of New York Times Tech Guild members are also planning to join the public event--which comes amid a national resurgence of labor organizing.
\u201cAfter 20 months of negotiations, enough is enough. Times Guild members deserve a fair contract that reflects their contribution to the company's success.\u201d— New York Times Tech Guild (@New York Times Tech Guild) 1670357142
"We've also experienced a pattern of bad faith tactics since we began bargaining," the tech union tweeted Tuesday. "We've put in countless hours to draft good faith proposals and ensure transparency. Management has responded with the bare minimum and engaged in a pattern of disrespect towards our collective rights."
"In addition to stalling bargaining, senior leaders have continued to downplay and neglect systemic issues at the [Times] like patterns of discrimination in discipline, pay, remote work, and other policies," the group continued, adding that the newspaper's "approach to bargaining is not only disrespectful, it's illegal" and calling on leadership to "negotiate in good faith."
In a statement to The Hill on Wednesday, the newspaper said that "while we are disappointed that the NewsGuild is threatening to strike, we are prepared to ensure the Times continues to serve our readers without disruption."
"We remain committed to working with the NYT NewsGuild to reach a contract that we can all be proud of," the newspaper continued. "Our current wage proposal offers significant increases. The majority of members of the bargaining unit would earn 50% or more in additional earnings over the life of the new contract than they would have if the old contract had continued. Moreover, our accompanying medical and retirement proposals offer sustainable, best-in-class options for guild members."
Other journalists, unionized workers, and groups have expressed solidarity with the Times Guild members who plan to walk off the job at midnight--including the Alphabet Workers Union, which said that "we got your back, and won't dare cross the picket line."
\u201cEquity members in NYC! Wear red and stand in solidarity with the members of @NYTimesGuild @nyguild and @newsguild tomorrow at 1PM!\nSee details below.\u201d— Actors' Equity (@Actors' Equity) 1670440206
New York transit reporter Ana Ley said Wednesday that the Times "has chosen to dock our pay for walking out--an act that will mostly hurt the employees that the company pays least. I find that unacceptable, and I hope you'll join us for this Thursday's rally."
Times political reporter Maggie Astor tweeted that "we're asking readers to stand with us on the digital picket line and not visit any NYT platforms tomorrow. Read local news. Make something from a cookbook. Break your Wordle streak."
Over 1,000 New York Times workers are planning a full-day walkout and afternoon rally on Thursday, December 8 amid ongoing negotiations with newspaper management about pay and healthcare contributions.
Times Guild members, represented by the NewsGuild of New York, are pushing for a $65,000 salary floor and "funding employees' health insurance sustainably."
"There was good news and bad news after 12 hours of bargaining yesterday. Our collective action is working: Management backed off its attempt to kill our pension and agreed to expand fertility benefits," the member-led Times Guild account tweeted Wednesday.
"But management still barely budged on some of our most important priorities. The company is stuck on paltry pay increases, eroding the minimum pay scales for new hires, and contributing less to our healthcare fund than they currently do," the union added. "That's why tomorrow's walkout is, for now, still on."
\u201cI'll be walking out tomorrow. I'm disappointed that it has come to this and hope that management will do better. I'm grateful to work at the New York Times but my colleagues and I deserve to be compensated fairly.\u201d— Priya Krishna (@Priya Krishna) 1670439900
"The Times Guild represents journalists, as well as ad sales workers, comment moderators, news assistants, security guards, and staffers at the Times Center, the venue and virtual production studio," according to a union statement. "All workers who signed the walkout pledge are anticipated to participate in the one-day work stoppage, with some major desks losing 90% of their workforce that day, and other departments being essentially empty of guild employees."
Times sports reporter Jenny Vrentas said Tuesday that "we know that our readers are best served when our workplace is equitable and the people who make The New York Times are paid fairly."
"We had hoped to reach a fair deal before our deadline," Vrentas noted, "but more than 1,100 of us are ready to take a stand together, for each other and for journalists everywhere."
\u201cThe New York Times is bracing for a historic mass walkout by more than 1,000 newsroom workers tomorrow, Thursday, as contract negotiations go down to the wire.\n\nA major sticking point is that the NYT's pay offer will leave the workers far behind inflation\nhttps://t.co/4qGT8kVZtQ\u201d— Steven Greenhouse (@Steven Greenhouse) 1670428051
Chief film critic A.O. Scott explained that "I've worked at the New York Times for almost 23 years--most of my adult life. It's not just my job: the values and principles of the paper are part of who I am, and I know the same is true for many of my co-workers."
"In hard times, we were willing to sacrifice to ensure the paper's survival, and we push ourselves and one another every day to make sure the Times lives up to its highest ideals," Scott continued. "That's why it's so dismaying to see our concerns and aspirations treated so dismissively by management, and our contributions disrespected. Stepping away from my work isn't something I take lightly--I care about it too much for that. But I'd like to believe that the Times cares about it too, and about all the hard work that makes the daily miracle possible."
NewsGuild of New York president Susan DeCarava highlighted that it has been decades since employees at the U.S. "paper of record" have taken similar action.
"Guild members at The New York Times are determined to ensure that, through collective action, the company lives up to its mission when it comes to all the workers responsible for its meteoric success during the past several years," said DeCarava. "The New York Times, which has not seen a work stoppage of this scale since the '70s, is on notice. Our members understand the value of their labor, and it's time for Times management to demonstrate the same."
As Shawn McCreesh wrote for Intelligencer earlier this month:
There was a one-hour walkout over a lapsed contract in 2011, and another quick afternoon walkout in 2017 over copy editors being eliminated. But those were mostly shows of solidarity. What the employees are preparing to do next week would be something not seen at the paper of record since 1978. Picture it: a full day without The New York Times. No one covering the tumult in Guangzhou or inside Buckingham Palace or what our president is saying. From midnight to midnight, no reporting, no filing stories, no podcasting, no comment moderating, and definitely no responding to editors' queries. There would be no live briefings. (You'd be shocked at how many people it takes to produce one of those things.) Even logging into Oak (that's their CMS) will be seen as scabby. Reporters tell me they're ready to picket outside the building, too. ("There will be plenty of photo ops," muses one.) Sure, masthead myrmidons will have enough copy in the hopper to keep that homepage humming for a little while, and it's not as though the app on your phone will suddenly go blank. But the walkout threat is a marked escalation from an ordinarily fissiparous newsroom. It's the sort of stunt that precedes an actual sustained strike.
"Obviously the next step, if we can't get anywhere at the negotiating table, is to consider things like a strike authorization vote," says reporter Michael Powell, adding that "none of us want to step into the terra incognita if this isn't seen as a significant warning shot." Senior staff editor Tom Coffey has been at the Times since 1997 and says, "I think this is the worst I've seen it since the staff mutiny that led to Howell Raines being fired."
Coffey is scheduled to speak Thursday at the 1:00 pm ET rally at the newspaper's building in New York City, along with Vrentas and journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, who both hold union positions.
Hundreds of New York Times Tech Guild members are also planning to join the public event--which comes amid a national resurgence of labor organizing.
\u201cAfter 20 months of negotiations, enough is enough. Times Guild members deserve a fair contract that reflects their contribution to the company's success.\u201d— New York Times Tech Guild (@New York Times Tech Guild) 1670357142
"We've also experienced a pattern of bad faith tactics since we began bargaining," the tech union tweeted Tuesday. "We've put in countless hours to draft good faith proposals and ensure transparency. Management has responded with the bare minimum and engaged in a pattern of disrespect towards our collective rights."
"In addition to stalling bargaining, senior leaders have continued to downplay and neglect systemic issues at the [Times] like patterns of discrimination in discipline, pay, remote work, and other policies," the group continued, adding that the newspaper's "approach to bargaining is not only disrespectful, it's illegal" and calling on leadership to "negotiate in good faith."
In a statement to The Hill on Wednesday, the newspaper said that "while we are disappointed that the NewsGuild is threatening to strike, we are prepared to ensure the Times continues to serve our readers without disruption."
"We remain committed to working with the NYT NewsGuild to reach a contract that we can all be proud of," the newspaper continued. "Our current wage proposal offers significant increases. The majority of members of the bargaining unit would earn 50% or more in additional earnings over the life of the new contract than they would have if the old contract had continued. Moreover, our accompanying medical and retirement proposals offer sustainable, best-in-class options for guild members."
Other journalists, unionized workers, and groups have expressed solidarity with the Times Guild members who plan to walk off the job at midnight--including the Alphabet Workers Union, which said that "we got your back, and won't dare cross the picket line."
\u201cEquity members in NYC! Wear red and stand in solidarity with the members of @NYTimesGuild @nyguild and @newsguild tomorrow at 1PM!\nSee details below.\u201d— Actors' Equity (@Actors' Equity) 1670440206
New York transit reporter Ana Ley said Wednesday that the Times "has chosen to dock our pay for walking out--an act that will mostly hurt the employees that the company pays least. I find that unacceptable, and I hope you'll join us for this Thursday's rally."
Times political reporter Maggie Astor tweeted that "we're asking readers to stand with us on the digital picket line and not visit any NYT platforms tomorrow. Read local news. Make something from a cookbook. Break your Wordle streak."
"It is no small thing to overturn the results of an election in a democracy by throwing out ballots that were legally cast consistent with all election laws in effect on the day of the election," one dissenting justice said.
In what North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein called a "dark day" for the state, the North Carolina Supreme Court on Friday delivered a partial victory to Republican Judge Jefferson Griffin, who is challenging some 65,000 votes in his bid to overturn the narrow win of his Democratic opponent and incumbent state Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs.
The Supreme Court, ruling 4-2, partially overturned an appeals court decision earlier this month that gave all the challenged voters 15 days to affirm their identities. Instead, the state's highest court ruled that around 60,000 ballots with registration inconsistencies would not be challenged, but approximately 5,000 overseas or military voters would have to verify their identities within 30 days. Riggs said she would challenge the ruling in federal court, and asked the court to temporarily block the order.
"I'm the proud daughter of a 30-year military veteran who was deployed overseas, and it is unacceptable that the court is choosing to selectively disenfranchise North Carolinians serving our country, here and overseas," Riggs said in a statement. "While I'm gratified to see the Court of Appeals reversed on the erroneous decision to potentially disenfranchise the more than 60,000 North Carolinians whose registration my opponent has recklessly challenged, I will not waiver in my fight to protect the fundamental freedoms for which our military service members and their families have sacrificed so much."
"This shocking decision abandons the judiciary's most basic role, to protect the rights of the people, and sanctions an outright attempt to steal an election."
Riggs won the November contest to remain on the state Supreme Court by 734 votes, but Griffin has challenged several thousand votes, predominantly on two grounds: Around 60,000 of the challenged votes are from in-state voters whose driver's license or social security numbers were missing from a state database of registered voters, while another approximately 2,000 to 7,000 are overseas or military voters who did not show ID when voting absentee. A significant number of the votes he challenged belonged to people living in Democratic-leaning counties.
The state Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the 60,000 in-state voters should not be challenged because their rights should not be denied due to “mistakes made by negligent election officials in registering citizens who are otherwise eligible to vote," as The New York Times reported.
However, the court allowed the challenge to the overseas votes to stand, even though overseas voters have never before been required to show ID since a state-voter ID law went into effect.
"Republicans are surgically targeting military voters from six counties and forcing them to re-prove themselves or be disenfranchised," Anderson Clayton, the chairwoman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, said in a statement reported by the Times.
Finally, the court also allowed the votes of nearly 300 voters who had never lived in North Carolina—often the children of North Carolina residents who turned 18 while living abroad—to be tossed.
If the state Supreme Court's ruling stands and the military and overseas votes are rejected, Griffin has said he expects it will be enough to tip the election in his favor, WRAL News reported.
The two dissenting justices vehemently condemned the majority decision.
"It is no small thing to overturn the results of an election in a democracy by throwing out ballots that were legally cast consistent with all election laws in effect on the day of the election," Democratic Justice Anita Earls wrote. "Some would call it stealing the election, others might call it a bloodless coup, but by whatever name, no amount of smoke and mirrors makes it legitimate."
Justice Richard Dietz, a Republican, broke with his party and agreed that the court should not alter election laws after the fact. He also criticized his colleagues for not hearing arguments before making their decision.
"By every measure, this is the most impactful election-related court decision our state has seen in decades," Dietz wrote. "It cries out for our full review and for a decisive rejection of this sort of post hoc judicial tampering in election results."
State and national Democratic Party leaders also spoke out against the court's decision.
"Today is a dark day for our courts and our state," North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein wrote on social media. "The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that certain active duty military voters serving our nation must jump through hoops that other voters don't. All voters have a constitutional right to be treated equally under the law—it is foundational to our democracy. It's unconscionable, and this decision cannot stand."
Former Attorney General Eric Holder called the ruling "both a disgrace and legacy defining for those who put their names behind it."
"This shocking decision abandons the judiciary's most basic role, to protect the rights of the people, and sanctions an outright attempt to steal an election," he said in a statement. "The North Carolina Supreme Court's Republican majority has, for naked partisan reasons, cherrypicked whose votes count and whose do not. It is the height of political arrogance to tell military members who serve and sacrifice for our country, and other voters, that their votes and those of their family members are questionable."
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said: "Jefferson Griffin doesn't get to pick and choose whose votes count in an election—no politician does. The men and women serving in our military will not allow their voices to be silenced by a desperate loser like Griffin."
"The nation is watching North Carolina," Martin continued. "Meanwhile, the DNC and Democrats across this country stand ready to marshal resources and manpower to ensure every vote cast in this election is counted. The people's voices will be heard, and Justice Allison Riggs will take her rightful place on the North Carolina Supreme Court."
"Trump is breaking the law and flouting a court order by handing the fossil fuel industry and polluters this blank check to kill millions of migratory birds," one advocate said.
The Trump administration moved on Friday to weaken protections for migratory birds threatened by industrial activities, including oil and gas operations.
Acting Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Gregory Zerzan restored an opinion from the first Trump administration that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) "does not apply to the accidental or incidental taking or killing of migratory birds," despite the fact that this opinion was already ruled illegal in federal court.
"Trump is breaking the law and flouting a court order by handing the fossil fuel industry and polluters this blank check to kill millions of migratory birds," said Tara Zuardo, a senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The United States has lost billions of birds over the past 50 years, and that decline will accelerate horrifically because of this callous, anti-wildlife directive. No one voted to slaughter hummingbirds, cranes, and raptors, but this is the reality of Trump's illegal actions today."
"We're not going to succeed in addressing the crisis facing birds and other wildlife if we let this and other historic rollbacks stand."
The new directive comes as birds in the U.S. are under threat, with their numbers falling by around 30% since 1970. A number of factors are responsible for this decline, among them the climate emergency, habitat loss, falling insect populations, window strikes, and outdoor cats. However, conservationists told The New York Times that industrial activities would be a greater threat if not for the protection the law provides.
For example, Zuardo told the Times that if U.S. President Donald Trump's interpretation of the law had been in effect following BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010—which likely killed over 1 million birds—the company would not have been charged the around $100 million in fines that went to support bird conservation after the disaster.
Friday's directive is part of an ongoing effort over the course of both Trump administrations to weaken the MBTA so that it only targets the purposeful killing of birds, dropping enforcement against accidents such as as oil spills, drownings in uncovered oil pits, trappings in open mining pipes, and collisions with power lines or communication towers.
In 2017, lead Interior Department lawyer Daniel Jorjani issued an initial legal opinion claiming the MBTA only covered purposeful killings. This interpretation was struck down by a federal court in 2020, which argued that the act's "clear language" put it in "direct conflict" with the Trump opinion.
This didn't stop the Trump administration from issuing a final rule attempting to enshrine its interpretation of the MBTA at the end of Trump's first term, which was widely decried by bird advocates.
"We're not going to succeed in addressing the crisis facing birds and other wildlife if we let this and other historic rollbacks stand," Erik Schneider, policy manager for the National Audubon Society, said at the time.
However, months into the presidency of Joe Biden, DOI principal deputy solicitor Robert T. Anderson withdrew the initial 2017 Trump administration opinion after an appeals court, following the request of the U.S. government, dismissed the Trump administration's earlier appeal of the 2020 court decision.
"The lower court decision is consistent with the Department of the Interior's long-standing interpretation of the MBTA," Anderson wrote.
Later, the Biden administration also reversed the formal Trump-era rule weakening the MBTA.
Now, in his second term, Trump is coming for the birds again. The Biden-era withdrawal was one of 20 Biden-era opinions that the Trump DOI suspended in March. It was then officially revoked and withdrawn on Friday.
In justifying its decision, Trump's DOI cited the president's January 20 executive order "Unleashing American Energy," which calls on federal agencies to "suspend, revise, or rescind all agency actions identified as unduly burdensome," making it clear the weakening of protections is largely intended to benefit the fossil fuel and mining industries.
An advocate who has worked with the ICC said the order "actively undermines international justice efforts and obstructs the path to accountability for communities facing unthinkable horrors."
In a federal court in Maine on Friday, two human rights advocates argued that U.S. President Donald Trump's economic and travel sanctions against International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan violates their First Amendment rights, because of Trump's stipulation that U.S. citizens cannot provide Khan with any services or material support as long as the sanctions are in place.
The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU on behalf of Matthew Smith, co-founder of the human rights group Fortify Rights, and international lawyer Akila Radhakrishnan.
Trump targeted Khan with the sanctions over his issuing of an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, whom he accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
The plaintiffs argued that stopping U.S. citizens from working with Khan will bring their work investigating other atrocities to a halt.
Smith has provided the ICC with evidence of the forced deportation and genocide of the Rohingya people in Myanmar, but he said he has been "forced to stop helping the ICC investigate horrific crimes committed against the people of Myanmar, including mass murder, torture, and human trafficking."
"This executive order doesn't just disrupt our work—it actively undermines international justice efforts and obstructs the path to accountability for communities facing unthinkable horrors," Smith said in a statement.
"The Trump administration's sanctions may discourage countries, as well as individuals and corporations, from assisting the court, making it harder to bring alleged perpetrators from Israel and other countries to trial."
Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, said it was "unconstitutional" to block the plaintiffs and other humanitarian groups in the U.S. from "doing their human rights work" with the ICC.
Radhakrishnan, who focuses on gender-based violence in Afghanistan, said she was "bringing this suit to prevent my own government from punishing me for trying to hold the Taliban accountable for its systematic violence against women and girls from Afghanistan."
In March, Amnesty International warned that Trump's sanctions would "hinder justice for all victims for whom the [ICC] is a last resort," particularly those in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories.
The court "relies on its member states to cooperate in its investigations and prosecutions, including by arresting individuals subject to ICC arrest warrants," said Amnesty. "The Trump administration's sanctions may discourage countries, as well as individuals and corporations, from assisting the court, making it harder to bring alleged perpetrators from Israel and other countries to trial."
"Ultimately, the sanctions will harm all of the ICC's investigations, not just those opposed by the U.S. government," said the group. "They will negatively impact the interests of all victims who look to the court for justice in all the countries where it is conducting investigations, including those investigations the U.S. ostensibly supports—for example in Ukraine, Uganda, or Darfur."