Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation: Personalized Pricing Benefits Consumers When Markets Function Well
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Personalized pricing benefits consumers when markets function well
Depending on how and where it is employed, personalized pricing has the potential to enhance competition and consumer welfare.
Max Gulker
Managing Director
November 2, 2026
Computing technology has changed the way firms set prices, with data and calculations replacing guesswork and rules of thumb in many industries. The continued evolution of algorithmic pricing methods has opened the door to personalized pricing, where consumers are ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Personalized pricing benefits consumers when markets function well Depending on how and where it is employed, personalized pricing has the potential to enhance competition and consumer welfare. Max Gulker Managing Director November 2, 2026 Computing technology has changed the way firms set prices, with data and calculations replacing guesswork and rules of thumb in many industries. The continued evolution of algorithmic pricing methods has opened the door to personalized pricing, where consumers arequoted different prices based on their own individual data. Public concern about this still-developing technology has grown, causing federal agencies and state legislatures to take notice.
Many worry that firms will be able to determine the maximum amount each customer is willing to pay for an item and set personalized prices accordingly. In a particularly troubling version of this scenario, a firm might identify a consumer's urgent or desperate need and exploit it by jacking up prices.
But while these strategies are becoming technically feasible in some settings, they remain strikingly absent in the real world. Instead, the most widespread and established current use of personalized pricing is the opposite of the targeted price-gouging many imagine. Through installed apps, membership agreements, and subscriptions, large retailers use repeat-customer data to offer extra discounts on products they are likely to demand.
Depending on how and where it is employed, personalized pricing can either enhance competition and consumer welfare, or, at least in theory, harm consumers through deception and higher prices. Pro-consumer outcomes arise in healthy markets where sellers compete vigorously, and consumers are well informed about how their data is used. This distinction should caution policymakers eager to ban or tightly control personalized pricing, but does not mean the potential for exploitation should be ignored. The rapid, uncertain development of artificial intelligence (AI) suggests focusing more attention on settings where competition or transparency is lacking.
Competition leads to personalized discounting
The only personalized pricing strategy that observers generally agree to be in current widespread use is personalized discounting. Retailers such as CVS, Kroger, and Amazon use consumers' shopping histories to select discounts and other offers consumers are likely to find compelling. Firms access these shopping histories through relationships with consumers developed over time, and disclose the strategies through membership agreements, app downloads, and subscriptions.
These uses of personalized pricing are popular with consumers, as evidenced by the 90 million and 200 million members that CVS and Amazon respectively report in their loyalty programs. These firms emphasize that they only use personal customer data to discount prices, not to raise prices above a baseline level. This distinction between discounting and raising prices is a useful rule of thumb for desirable uses of the technology, but it is important to understand why these firms choose to discount the products repeat customers most want rather than raise their prices.
The most important factor determining whether personalized pricing benefits consumers is the presence of robust competition. While the large retailers discussed above have some market power, it is difficult to imagine any firm other than a pure and protected monopoly sustaining a strategy in which prices are set at or near the highest amount individual consumers are willing to pay. If any firm outside a protected monopoly charged prices far above the level needed to earn an ordinary profit, competitors would have opportunities to offer prices low enough to gain substantial market share but still high enough to profit.
Many of the troubling hypothetical scenarios proposed by opponents of personalized pricing focus on what is or may soon become technically feasible, but neglect the disciplining forces of competition. In an August 2026 proposed policy statement, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) listed several potential exploitative applications, including, "a hotel charging a higher price to a consumer on the basis of data personal to that consumer leading the hotel to believe that the consumer is traveling for a funeral or some other can't-miss personal business." But consider the opportunity such a strategy would create for other hotels to profitably undercut their competitor. They could easily win this customer's business by offering a lower rate, increasing their own profit. Consumers' ability to comparison shop for hotels across multiple platforms would make opportunities to undercut exorbitant prices even more immediately lucrative, and if the offending hotel tried to sustain the strategy, it might even create opportunities for competitors to advertise discounts.
Personalized pricing strategies that raise prices to the estimated maximum each consumer will pay become even less feasible if a retailer attempted to scale this strategy across products and customers; in a 2024 letter to Kroger, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and then-Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) expressed concerns that the supermarket chain would use existing technology to do just that. At issue were in-store electronic shelf labels (ESLs), created in a partnership with Microsoft, that the company used to collect data and enable market-wide dynamic pricing (where the uniform price charged to consumers can be changed without physically relabeling goods on shelves).
While the senators did not allege Kroger used the technology for personalized pricing, they expressed concerns that the installed ESLs "may enable Kroger to gather data on customers to determine how much price hiking they can tolerate and then present each customer with personalized price tags at the grocery shelf."
Like the FTC, the senators focused on strategies made possible by technology, but that would realistically be foreclosed by market competition. If a major grocery chain tried to employ and sustain this strategy at any meaningful scale, it would create highly profitable opportunities for competitors (both brick-and-mortar and online) to undercut prices and advertise heavily. If such a grocery store were in a remote area, these high prices could attract new competitors. The only way a retailer could charge so many consumers high personalized prices is if it were a heavily protected monopoly facing near-zero competition and extremely high barriers to entry for other firms. Such a pure monopolist would likely already charge exorbitant prices to all consumers and quickly attract scrutiny from antitrust authorities.
These realities suggest that new laws banning or highly restricting personalized pricing aren't necessary. As in other cases where firms exploit market power, targeted antitrust enforcement is likely to protect consumers against such possibilities, however remote.
The importance of well-informed consumers
Well-informed consumers are another important component of functioning markets. Harmful outcomes can emerge when consumers have less or incorrect information than the firms with whom they transact. The free flow of information about how personal data turns into prices allows consumers to make more informed decisions about where to shop. Consider again the case of a grocery store attempting to charge customers their maximum willingness to pay for items. High prices alone would likely push consumers to other stores, but knowing why those prices were so high would more quickly show consumers that competitors offer better deals.
Informative disclosures about personalized pricing are therefore important for positive market outcomes. The grocery and drugstore apps discussed above make this information clear. CVS offers members of its ExtraCare program "customized" offers and discounts through emails, text messages, and its shopping app. In its privacy policy, the firm lists the data it may collect, including demographics, shopping history, and browser cookies. The result is personalized discounts, both storewide and on specific products a consumer is likely to purchase. Kroger discloses that it uses similar customer data to provide "ways to save on items you buy most often or that you might like based on your past interests."
The FTC notes in a recent policy statement that it lacks Congressional authority to make sweeping prohibitions on personalized pricing, but that it "intends to enforce the law aggressively against any deceptive or unfair personalized pricing practices that violate Section 5 of the FTC Act or any other law enforced by the Commission." Nonetheless, providing consumers with clear ways to know how their data is used is an important step in building public trust and pushing back against overly prescriptive new laws or regulations.
Legitimate concerns may also arise when firms purchase data from brokers hiding in grey or black markets. Online retailers eager to purchase such data might be able to employ strategies more hidden from consumers than highly visible big-box retailers.
An earlier FTC statement, released at the end of the Biden presidency, highlights these possibilities but provides no specific examples. The FTC conducted research on data brokers, but due to a combination of incomplete information and legal restrictions, was forced to aggregate and anonymize its results. All of the brief report's "conclusions" about personalized pricing are couched in hypothetical terms, making it difficult to determine if authorities found any concrete examples of real-world personalized pricing strategies arising from these questionable data trading practices. Authorities must spend more time studying these issues to separate fact from speculation, set standards to create public trust, and enforce any real violations of antitrust or privacy law.
Opportunities for exploitation and price-gouging have existed as long as markets themselves. Competition and informed consumers provide effective safeguards in most cases, and where they do not, modern economies have long provided rules and means to enforce them. Personalized pricing is no different. No evidence suggests that the exploitation or price-gouging many imagine has yet come to pass. If future problems arise, they will likely occur when a firm is shielded from competition or when consumer information is limited.
Personalized pricing will warrant continued attention from policymakers as AI technology continues to develop and consumers' online data footprints continue to grow. But the same market forces that have always disciplined price-setting by firms will keep most problematic uses of the strategy in the realm of the hypothetical.
* * *
Max Gulker, Ph.D., is managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/personalized-pricing-benefits-consumers-when-markets-function-well/
* * *
Personalized pricing benefits consumers when markets function well
Depending on how and where it is employed, personalized pricing has the potential to enhance competition and consumer welfare.
Max Gulker
Managing Director
November 2, 2026
Computing technology has changed the way firms set prices, with data and calculations replacing guesswork and rules of thumb in many industries. The continued evolution of algorithmic pricing methods has opened the door to personalized pricing, where consumers are ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Personalized pricing benefits consumers when markets function well Depending on how and where it is employed, personalized pricing has the potential to enhance competition and consumer welfare. Max Gulker Managing Director November 2, 2026 Computing technology has changed the way firms set prices, with data and calculations replacing guesswork and rules of thumb in many industries. The continued evolution of algorithmic pricing methods has opened the door to personalized pricing, where consumers arequoted different prices based on their own individual data. Public concern about this still-developing technology has grown, causing federal agencies and state legislatures to take notice.
Many worry that firms will be able to determine the maximum amount each customer is willing to pay for an item and set personalized prices accordingly. In a particularly troubling version of this scenario, a firm might identify a consumer's urgent or desperate need and exploit it by jacking up prices.
But while these strategies are becoming technically feasible in some settings, they remain strikingly absent in the real world. Instead, the most widespread and established current use of personalized pricing is the opposite of the targeted price-gouging many imagine. Through installed apps, membership agreements, and subscriptions, large retailers use repeat-customer data to offer extra discounts on products they are likely to demand.
Depending on how and where it is employed, personalized pricing can either enhance competition and consumer welfare, or, at least in theory, harm consumers through deception and higher prices. Pro-consumer outcomes arise in healthy markets where sellers compete vigorously, and consumers are well informed about how their data is used. This distinction should caution policymakers eager to ban or tightly control personalized pricing, but does not mean the potential for exploitation should be ignored. The rapid, uncertain development of artificial intelligence (AI) suggests focusing more attention on settings where competition or transparency is lacking.
Competition leads to personalized discounting
The only personalized pricing strategy that observers generally agree to be in current widespread use is personalized discounting. Retailers such as CVS, Kroger, and Amazon use consumers' shopping histories to select discounts and other offers consumers are likely to find compelling. Firms access these shopping histories through relationships with consumers developed over time, and disclose the strategies through membership agreements, app downloads, and subscriptions.
These uses of personalized pricing are popular with consumers, as evidenced by the 90 million and 200 million members that CVS and Amazon respectively report in their loyalty programs. These firms emphasize that they only use personal customer data to discount prices, not to raise prices above a baseline level. This distinction between discounting and raising prices is a useful rule of thumb for desirable uses of the technology, but it is important to understand why these firms choose to discount the products repeat customers most want rather than raise their prices.
The most important factor determining whether personalized pricing benefits consumers is the presence of robust competition. While the large retailers discussed above have some market power, it is difficult to imagine any firm other than a pure and protected monopoly sustaining a strategy in which prices are set at or near the highest amount individual consumers are willing to pay. If any firm outside a protected monopoly charged prices far above the level needed to earn an ordinary profit, competitors would have opportunities to offer prices low enough to gain substantial market share but still high enough to profit.
Many of the troubling hypothetical scenarios proposed by opponents of personalized pricing focus on what is or may soon become technically feasible, but neglect the disciplining forces of competition. In an August 2026 proposed policy statement, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) listed several potential exploitative applications, including, "a hotel charging a higher price to a consumer on the basis of data personal to that consumer leading the hotel to believe that the consumer is traveling for a funeral or some other can't-miss personal business." But consider the opportunity such a strategy would create for other hotels to profitably undercut their competitor. They could easily win this customer's business by offering a lower rate, increasing their own profit. Consumers' ability to comparison shop for hotels across multiple platforms would make opportunities to undercut exorbitant prices even more immediately lucrative, and if the offending hotel tried to sustain the strategy, it might even create opportunities for competitors to advertise discounts.
Personalized pricing strategies that raise prices to the estimated maximum each consumer will pay become even less feasible if a retailer attempted to scale this strategy across products and customers; in a 2024 letter to Kroger, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and then-Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) expressed concerns that the supermarket chain would use existing technology to do just that. At issue were in-store electronic shelf labels (ESLs), created in a partnership with Microsoft, that the company used to collect data and enable market-wide dynamic pricing (where the uniform price charged to consumers can be changed without physically relabeling goods on shelves).
While the senators did not allege Kroger used the technology for personalized pricing, they expressed concerns that the installed ESLs "may enable Kroger to gather data on customers to determine how much price hiking they can tolerate and then present each customer with personalized price tags at the grocery shelf."
Like the FTC, the senators focused on strategies made possible by technology, but that would realistically be foreclosed by market competition. If a major grocery chain tried to employ and sustain this strategy at any meaningful scale, it would create highly profitable opportunities for competitors (both brick-and-mortar and online) to undercut prices and advertise heavily. If such a grocery store were in a remote area, these high prices could attract new competitors. The only way a retailer could charge so many consumers high personalized prices is if it were a heavily protected monopoly facing near-zero competition and extremely high barriers to entry for other firms. Such a pure monopolist would likely already charge exorbitant prices to all consumers and quickly attract scrutiny from antitrust authorities.
These realities suggest that new laws banning or highly restricting personalized pricing aren't necessary. As in other cases where firms exploit market power, targeted antitrust enforcement is likely to protect consumers against such possibilities, however remote.
The importance of well-informed consumers
Well-informed consumers are another important component of functioning markets. Harmful outcomes can emerge when consumers have less or incorrect information than the firms with whom they transact. The free flow of information about how personal data turns into prices allows consumers to make more informed decisions about where to shop. Consider again the case of a grocery store attempting to charge customers their maximum willingness to pay for items. High prices alone would likely push consumers to other stores, but knowing why those prices were so high would more quickly show consumers that competitors offer better deals.
Informative disclosures about personalized pricing are therefore important for positive market outcomes. The grocery and drugstore apps discussed above make this information clear. CVS offers members of its ExtraCare program "customized" offers and discounts through emails, text messages, and its shopping app. In its privacy policy, the firm lists the data it may collect, including demographics, shopping history, and browser cookies. The result is personalized discounts, both storewide and on specific products a consumer is likely to purchase. Kroger discloses that it uses similar customer data to provide "ways to save on items you buy most often or that you might like based on your past interests."
The FTC notes in a recent policy statement that it lacks Congressional authority to make sweeping prohibitions on personalized pricing, but that it "intends to enforce the law aggressively against any deceptive or unfair personalized pricing practices that violate Section 5 of the FTC Act or any other law enforced by the Commission." Nonetheless, providing consumers with clear ways to know how their data is used is an important step in building public trust and pushing back against overly prescriptive new laws or regulations.
Legitimate concerns may also arise when firms purchase data from brokers hiding in grey or black markets. Online retailers eager to purchase such data might be able to employ strategies more hidden from consumers than highly visible big-box retailers.
An earlier FTC statement, released at the end of the Biden presidency, highlights these possibilities but provides no specific examples. The FTC conducted research on data brokers, but due to a combination of incomplete information and legal restrictions, was forced to aggregate and anonymize its results. All of the brief report's "conclusions" about personalized pricing are couched in hypothetical terms, making it difficult to determine if authorities found any concrete examples of real-world personalized pricing strategies arising from these questionable data trading practices. Authorities must spend more time studying these issues to separate fact from speculation, set standards to create public trust, and enforce any real violations of antitrust or privacy law.
Opportunities for exploitation and price-gouging have existed as long as markets themselves. Competition and informed consumers provide effective safeguards in most cases, and where they do not, modern economies have long provided rules and means to enforce them. Personalized pricing is no different. No evidence suggests that the exploitation or price-gouging many imagine has yet come to pass. If future problems arise, they will likely occur when a firm is shielded from competition or when consumer information is limited.
Personalized pricing will warrant continued attention from policymakers as AI technology continues to develop and consumers' online data footprints continue to grow. But the same market forces that have always disciplined price-setting by firms will keep most problematic uses of the strategy in the realm of the hypothetical.
* * *
Max Gulker, Ph.D., is managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/personalized-pricing-benefits-consumers-when-markets-function-well/
Reason Foundation: Massachusetts Ballot Question 8 Seeks to Reverse Marijuana Legalization
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Massachusetts Ballot Question 8 seeks to reverse marijuana legalization
Question 8 on the state's Nov. 3 ballot would repeal provisions of the 2016 cannabis legalization, ending legal adult-use sales and criminalizing home grows.
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz
Senior Fellow
Michelle Minton
Managing Director
November 2, 2026
Massachusetts is considering a measure to reverse legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana. The state legalized adult use, or "recreational," marijuana in 2016, with 54% of ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Massachusetts Ballot Question 8 seeks to reverse marijuana legalization Question 8 on the state's Nov. 3 ballot would repeal provisions of the 2016 cannabis legalization, ending legal adult-use sales and criminalizing home grows. Hanna Liebman Dershowitz Senior Fellow Michelle Minton Managing Director November 2, 2026 Massachusetts is considering a measure to reverse legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana. The state legalized adult use, or "recreational," marijuana in 2016, with 54% ofvoters approving a ballot measure that made sales and home growing of marijuana legal for adults. Question 8 on the state's Nov. 3 ballot would repeal provisions of the 2016 legalization, ending legal adult-use sales and criminalizing home grows, but would keep possession of small quantities of marijuana decriminalized.
Question 8 offers Massachusetts voters a choice between an imperfect but regulated legal marijuana market and a return to prohibition, with all the costs and unintended consequences that entails. Rejecting this rollback attempt would signal that voters recognize the best way to address concerns about regulatory shortcomings is to improve the regulations, not retreat to a failed policy voters roundly rejected a decade ago.
This is the first attempt to roll back legalization in the dozen years since states started moving toward legalization. Over that period, Massachusetts became one of 24 states and the District of Columbia that have legalized and regulated "recreational" (or "adult-use") marijuana.
By many metrics, legalization has been a successful policy, especially when compared to the harms caused by prohibition, and the sky has not fallen. There have, of course, been missteps in Massachusetts and elsewhere, with states implementing different versions of legalization. The illicit market has not been fully eliminated in the Commonwealth, but it has certainly shrunk since legalization. A report recently published by the Cannabis Control Commission shows that 84% of Massachusetts residents who use cannabis obtained it from a licensed source. That is a decent endorsement of the state's regulated market.
There is no groundswell for this effort to re-prohibit marijuana. It is not a grassroots movement. The group backing the repeal, the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, is funded almost entirely by Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), a longtime opponent of marijuana legalization headquartered in Alexandria, VA. The advocacy group has poured nearly $3.5 million into the repeal effort in Massachusetts.
Supporters of Question 8 claim legalization has introduced offensive odors to Massachusetts streets, endangered minors, failed to eliminate the illegal market, and contributed to road accidents. They suggest that cannabis commercialization is the cause of some youth mental health problems, though the change in policy to legalization only applied to adults and has not led to increased youth use.
According to the official Massachusetts ballot, Massachusetts would lose significant tax funds from the legal market if it re-criminalizes the supply market. The ballot reads: "In fiscal year 2025, taxation of the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana raised approximately $280 million in state revenue and $50 million in local revenue. The state budget, which is supported by tax revenue, funds local aid for schools and municipal budgets." Jobs in those legal markets would also be lost.
Question 8 is opposed by a slightly bipartisan phalanx of local and national elected officials, from Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), to current Boston Mayor Michelle Wu. The state SEIU and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts also oppose it. More than 62 state lawmakers have also endorsed the "No on 8" campaign opposing the ballot measure.
Opponents of Question 8 note that prohibition does not make people safer, and point to the harms of the illicit market. Opponents also debunk fear-mongering claims by proponents suggesting that legalization in Colorado caused increases in harm to children. Based on an analysis of Centers for Disease Control data by the Marijuana Policy Project, adult-use legalization has coincided with a reduction in youth marijuana use. The report finds that past-month marijuana use by high-school-aged youth in Massachusetts was 26% in 2015, the year before legalization. By 2025, that rate had dropped to 12%. The same declining rates of youth marijuana use have been observed in other states following marijuana legalization, lending support to the idea that regulated markets better protect youth than criminalized markets. After all, drug dealers don't have to comply with state regulations or check IDs as is mandated at legal points of sale.
One practical concern is that the ballot descriptions are a little confusing, including the repetition of identical language in both the yes and no descriptions, which may confuse some voters about how to vote. The comedians from Broken Lizard, most famous for "Super Troopers"--a film about marijuana-smoking highway patrolmen--have come out against the effort to recriminalize cannabis in Massachusetts with an ad poking fun at the measure's wording and urging voters to "just say no" to Question 8. The spot was sponsored by the Committee for Responsible Cannabis Policy, a ballot committee formed by members of the nonprofit group Law Enforcement Action Partnership.
In addition, some claims made in the official ballot language are misleading. For example, the ballot claims: "Since commercial legalization, marijuana is now the most common drug found in fatal car accidents in Massachusetts." This omits the fact that marijuana can be detected in the human body for up to three months (depending on the method of testing), long after its impairing effects have worn off. Its presence in toxicology screening for those involved in car accidents does not mean the drug caused the accident or even impacted that person's driving. Moreover, many accidents involving marijuana also involve other drugs, such as alcohol.
Question 8 may fail, which could prevent a raft of similar rollback attempts in other states. A mid-September poll found 61% of Massachusetts likely voters would oppose Question 8, meaning they do not want to repeal the existing regulations that provide for a safe and legal supply for adults choosing to use marijuana. At the same time, 11% said they were undecided, and fewer than one-third of likely voters favored the measure. Another poll fielded in the same timeframe found 71% would vote against the measure at the time of the survey.
While SAM has not succeeded in initiating any other ballot measures in 2026, another ballot measure in Idaho, HJR 4, shows such strong animus toward legalization that it seeks to strip citizens of the right to use the ballot initiative process to legalize marijuana or any other drug. Idaho is one of only nine states left without any legal access to marijuana, medical or recreational, despite citizens unsuccessfully attempting to get ballot measures qualified since 2012.
Back in Massachusetts, if voters don't get confused that voting 'yes' on Measure 8 would be a vote in favor of repealing marijuana legalization, it seems very possible the measure will fail, signaling that prohibition is not ascendant. Given the lack of widespread complaints about the program over the last decade, and the persistent, clear failures of prohibition, citizens should reject this attempt to return to a criminalized market.
* * *
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz is a senior policy fellow at Reason Foundation.
Michelle Minton is the managing director of drug policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/massachusetts-ballot-question-8-seeks-to-reverse-marijuana-legalization/
* * *
Massachusetts Ballot Question 8 seeks to reverse marijuana legalization
Question 8 on the state's Nov. 3 ballot would repeal provisions of the 2016 cannabis legalization, ending legal adult-use sales and criminalizing home grows.
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz
Senior Fellow
Michelle Minton
Managing Director
November 2, 2026
Massachusetts is considering a measure to reverse legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana. The state legalized adult use, or "recreational," marijuana in 2016, with 54% of ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Massachusetts Ballot Question 8 seeks to reverse marijuana legalization Question 8 on the state's Nov. 3 ballot would repeal provisions of the 2016 cannabis legalization, ending legal adult-use sales and criminalizing home grows. Hanna Liebman Dershowitz Senior Fellow Michelle Minton Managing Director November 2, 2026 Massachusetts is considering a measure to reverse legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana. The state legalized adult use, or "recreational," marijuana in 2016, with 54% ofvoters approving a ballot measure that made sales and home growing of marijuana legal for adults. Question 8 on the state's Nov. 3 ballot would repeal provisions of the 2016 legalization, ending legal adult-use sales and criminalizing home grows, but would keep possession of small quantities of marijuana decriminalized.
Question 8 offers Massachusetts voters a choice between an imperfect but regulated legal marijuana market and a return to prohibition, with all the costs and unintended consequences that entails. Rejecting this rollback attempt would signal that voters recognize the best way to address concerns about regulatory shortcomings is to improve the regulations, not retreat to a failed policy voters roundly rejected a decade ago.
This is the first attempt to roll back legalization in the dozen years since states started moving toward legalization. Over that period, Massachusetts became one of 24 states and the District of Columbia that have legalized and regulated "recreational" (or "adult-use") marijuana.
By many metrics, legalization has been a successful policy, especially when compared to the harms caused by prohibition, and the sky has not fallen. There have, of course, been missteps in Massachusetts and elsewhere, with states implementing different versions of legalization. The illicit market has not been fully eliminated in the Commonwealth, but it has certainly shrunk since legalization. A report recently published by the Cannabis Control Commission shows that 84% of Massachusetts residents who use cannabis obtained it from a licensed source. That is a decent endorsement of the state's regulated market.
There is no groundswell for this effort to re-prohibit marijuana. It is not a grassroots movement. The group backing the repeal, the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, is funded almost entirely by Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), a longtime opponent of marijuana legalization headquartered in Alexandria, VA. The advocacy group has poured nearly $3.5 million into the repeal effort in Massachusetts.
Supporters of Question 8 claim legalization has introduced offensive odors to Massachusetts streets, endangered minors, failed to eliminate the illegal market, and contributed to road accidents. They suggest that cannabis commercialization is the cause of some youth mental health problems, though the change in policy to legalization only applied to adults and has not led to increased youth use.
According to the official Massachusetts ballot, Massachusetts would lose significant tax funds from the legal market if it re-criminalizes the supply market. The ballot reads: "In fiscal year 2025, taxation of the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana raised approximately $280 million in state revenue and $50 million in local revenue. The state budget, which is supported by tax revenue, funds local aid for schools and municipal budgets." Jobs in those legal markets would also be lost.
Question 8 is opposed by a slightly bipartisan phalanx of local and national elected officials, from Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), to current Boston Mayor Michelle Wu. The state SEIU and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts also oppose it. More than 62 state lawmakers have also endorsed the "No on 8" campaign opposing the ballot measure.
Opponents of Question 8 note that prohibition does not make people safer, and point to the harms of the illicit market. Opponents also debunk fear-mongering claims by proponents suggesting that legalization in Colorado caused increases in harm to children. Based on an analysis of Centers for Disease Control data by the Marijuana Policy Project, adult-use legalization has coincided with a reduction in youth marijuana use. The report finds that past-month marijuana use by high-school-aged youth in Massachusetts was 26% in 2015, the year before legalization. By 2025, that rate had dropped to 12%. The same declining rates of youth marijuana use have been observed in other states following marijuana legalization, lending support to the idea that regulated markets better protect youth than criminalized markets. After all, drug dealers don't have to comply with state regulations or check IDs as is mandated at legal points of sale.
One practical concern is that the ballot descriptions are a little confusing, including the repetition of identical language in both the yes and no descriptions, which may confuse some voters about how to vote. The comedians from Broken Lizard, most famous for "Super Troopers"--a film about marijuana-smoking highway patrolmen--have come out against the effort to recriminalize cannabis in Massachusetts with an ad poking fun at the measure's wording and urging voters to "just say no" to Question 8. The spot was sponsored by the Committee for Responsible Cannabis Policy, a ballot committee formed by members of the nonprofit group Law Enforcement Action Partnership.
In addition, some claims made in the official ballot language are misleading. For example, the ballot claims: "Since commercial legalization, marijuana is now the most common drug found in fatal car accidents in Massachusetts." This omits the fact that marijuana can be detected in the human body for up to three months (depending on the method of testing), long after its impairing effects have worn off. Its presence in toxicology screening for those involved in car accidents does not mean the drug caused the accident or even impacted that person's driving. Moreover, many accidents involving marijuana also involve other drugs, such as alcohol.
Question 8 may fail, which could prevent a raft of similar rollback attempts in other states. A mid-September poll found 61% of Massachusetts likely voters would oppose Question 8, meaning they do not want to repeal the existing regulations that provide for a safe and legal supply for adults choosing to use marijuana. At the same time, 11% said they were undecided, and fewer than one-third of likely voters favored the measure. Another poll fielded in the same timeframe found 71% would vote against the measure at the time of the survey.
While SAM has not succeeded in initiating any other ballot measures in 2026, another ballot measure in Idaho, HJR 4, shows such strong animus toward legalization that it seeks to strip citizens of the right to use the ballot initiative process to legalize marijuana or any other drug. Idaho is one of only nine states left without any legal access to marijuana, medical or recreational, despite citizens unsuccessfully attempting to get ballot measures qualified since 2012.
Back in Massachusetts, if voters don't get confused that voting 'yes' on Measure 8 would be a vote in favor of repealing marijuana legalization, it seems very possible the measure will fail, signaling that prohibition is not ascendant. Given the lack of widespread complaints about the program over the last decade, and the persistent, clear failures of prohibition, citizens should reject this attempt to return to a criminalized market.
* * *
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz is a senior policy fellow at Reason Foundation.
Michelle Minton is the managing director of drug policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/massachusetts-ballot-question-8-seeks-to-reverse-marijuana-legalization/
FFRF Warns Supreme Court Against Ruling on Nonexistent Religious Liberty Dispute
MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
November 2, 2026
FFRF warns Supreme Court against ruling on nonexistent religious liberty dispute
The Freedom From Religion Foundation in a friend-of-the-court brief is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject an extremist Christian legal outfit's latest legal ruse.
The national state/church watchdog argues in an amicus brief filed in a case, Grand v. City of University Height, before the Supreme Court that it should dismiss the case because the case was built on a nonexistent dispute ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * November 2, 2026 FFRF warns Supreme Court against ruling on nonexistent religious liberty dispute The Freedom From Religion Foundation in a friend-of-the-court brief is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject an extremist Christian legal outfit's latest legal ruse. The national state/church watchdog argues in an amicus brief filed in a case, Grand v. City of University Height, before the Supreme Court that it should dismiss the case because the case was built on a nonexistent disputewith the aim of overriding constitutional rules governing who can sue in federal court.
The lawsuit involves a former resident of University Heights, Ohio, who in 2021 invited a dozen or so neighbors to participate in weekly Jewish prayer gatherings at his home. After the invitation was circulated more widely, allegedly without his knowledge, city officials sent the resident, Daniel Grand, a cease-and-desist letter alerting him that he would need a special use permit if he intended to use his property as a house of worship for large gatherings.
Grand applied for a permit, then later withdrew his application, stating that he never intended to operate a house of worship from his home. Both Grand and the city agreed that small, informal religious gatherings, including the one Grand intended to host, do not require a permit under the city's zoning ordinance. The city never enforced the ordinance against him, and the city has expressly acknowledged that residents may host regular, informal religious or nonreligious gatherings without government permission.
FFRF warns that allowing the case to proceed could undermine constitutional safeguards that require federal courts to resolve genuine legal disputes rather than issue sweeping rulings based on hypothetical injuries.
"The agreement by both parties that Grand would not need a permit to host the gatherings he intended to host is destructive to all of his arguments that the Court has jurisdiction," the brief argues. "It appears this case is now a 'smoke and mirrors' challenge meant to advance a policy agenda, but afford no actual relief to the petitioner. This court's jurisdictional requirements are in place in part to ensure that the court cannot be manipulated in this manner."
FFRF contends that, in accepting this case, in which oral arguments will be heard in December, the court seems eager to advance the agenda of conservative religious litigants -- even when the underlying disputes no longer exist.
"The highest court in the land should be upholding the rule of law, not encouraging religious litigants to disregard it," comments Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president.
Grand sold his home and moved out of University Heights in July of this year. He no longer owns property there and has indicated no intention of returning. The city's zoning ordinance therefore cannot restrict his future activities. FFRF points out in its brief that Grand's counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom, may have shirked its duty to inform the court of this change: "Grand himself may not have been aware that his move to a new town would create a jurisdictional problem for this court. His attorneys, however, should have known of the mootness issue and of their duty to notify the court of Grand's move as soon as it arose. They failed to do so."
"This case is a textbook example of why the Constitution limits federal courts to actual cases and controversies," adds FFRF Senior Counsel Sam Grover, counsel of record on the brief. "The dispute arose from a misunderstanding, and now that Grand has moved, the issue is very obviously moot. A Supreme Court ruling would provide no meaningful relief to Grand or anyone else."
FFRF argues that Article III of the Constitution restricts federal courts to resolving actual cases and controversies. A plaintiff must demonstrate a sufficiently concrete injury, and that controversy must remain alive throughout the litigation.
Grand's challenge fails on both counts, FFRF maintains. He cannot establish a credible threat of enforcement against activities the city acknowledges are permissible, and his departure from University Heights has rendered his requests for prospective relief moot.
FFRF warns that the case fits a troubling pattern of religious liberty litigation designed to secure sweeping constitutional precedents even when the underlying disputes are questionable or no longer live.
FFRF points to Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court's controversial 2022 school prayer decision, as another example of the dangers of overlooking whether a genuine legal controversy still exists. Former high school football coach Joe Kennedy moved nearly 3,000 miles from Washington state to Florida during litigation, establishing residency there. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, instead of ruling the case moot, ruled in his favor, dramatically weakening longstanding protections against school-sponsored religious activity. After winning his case, Kennedy returned to Bremerton to coach just one football game before resigning and heading back to Florida. That sweeping constitutional ruling occurred in a case in which the plaintiff appeared to no longer have a meaningful stake in the outcome.
"Standing and mootness aren't technicalities that courts can overlook whenever a politically charged case presents an attractive opportunity to make new law," adds Grover. "These constitutional safeguards protect everyone. Religious litigants should have exactly the same access to the courts as anyone else, but not preferential access."
FFRF regularly advocates for the constitutional rights of atheists, agnostics and other nonreligious Americans, who must also meet strict standing requirements when challenging government actions that violate the separation of state and church. Allowing religious plaintiffs to bypass those requirements would create an unacceptable double standard, FFRF warns.
FFRF is asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as improvidently granted or, alternatively, affirm its dismissal or lack of jurisdiction.
FFRF legal fellow Charlotte Gude prepared the amicus brief, with editing support from FFRF attorneys Sam Grover and Sammi Lawrence.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 40,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-warns-supreme-court-against-ruling-on-nonexistent-religious-liberty-dispute/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
November 2, 2026
FFRF warns Supreme Court against ruling on nonexistent religious liberty dispute
The Freedom From Religion Foundation in a friend-of-the-court brief is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject an extremist Christian legal outfit's latest legal ruse.
The national state/church watchdog argues in an amicus brief filed in a case, Grand v. City of University Height, before the Supreme Court that it should dismiss the case because the case was built on a nonexistent dispute ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * November 2, 2026 FFRF warns Supreme Court against ruling on nonexistent religious liberty dispute The Freedom From Religion Foundation in a friend-of-the-court brief is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject an extremist Christian legal outfit's latest legal ruse. The national state/church watchdog argues in an amicus brief filed in a case, Grand v. City of University Height, before the Supreme Court that it should dismiss the case because the case was built on a nonexistent disputewith the aim of overriding constitutional rules governing who can sue in federal court.
The lawsuit involves a former resident of University Heights, Ohio, who in 2021 invited a dozen or so neighbors to participate in weekly Jewish prayer gatherings at his home. After the invitation was circulated more widely, allegedly without his knowledge, city officials sent the resident, Daniel Grand, a cease-and-desist letter alerting him that he would need a special use permit if he intended to use his property as a house of worship for large gatherings.
Grand applied for a permit, then later withdrew his application, stating that he never intended to operate a house of worship from his home. Both Grand and the city agreed that small, informal religious gatherings, including the one Grand intended to host, do not require a permit under the city's zoning ordinance. The city never enforced the ordinance against him, and the city has expressly acknowledged that residents may host regular, informal religious or nonreligious gatherings without government permission.
FFRF warns that allowing the case to proceed could undermine constitutional safeguards that require federal courts to resolve genuine legal disputes rather than issue sweeping rulings based on hypothetical injuries.
"The agreement by both parties that Grand would not need a permit to host the gatherings he intended to host is destructive to all of his arguments that the Court has jurisdiction," the brief argues. "It appears this case is now a 'smoke and mirrors' challenge meant to advance a policy agenda, but afford no actual relief to the petitioner. This court's jurisdictional requirements are in place in part to ensure that the court cannot be manipulated in this manner."
FFRF contends that, in accepting this case, in which oral arguments will be heard in December, the court seems eager to advance the agenda of conservative religious litigants -- even when the underlying disputes no longer exist.
"The highest court in the land should be upholding the rule of law, not encouraging religious litigants to disregard it," comments Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president.
Grand sold his home and moved out of University Heights in July of this year. He no longer owns property there and has indicated no intention of returning. The city's zoning ordinance therefore cannot restrict his future activities. FFRF points out in its brief that Grand's counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom, may have shirked its duty to inform the court of this change: "Grand himself may not have been aware that his move to a new town would create a jurisdictional problem for this court. His attorneys, however, should have known of the mootness issue and of their duty to notify the court of Grand's move as soon as it arose. They failed to do so."
"This case is a textbook example of why the Constitution limits federal courts to actual cases and controversies," adds FFRF Senior Counsel Sam Grover, counsel of record on the brief. "The dispute arose from a misunderstanding, and now that Grand has moved, the issue is very obviously moot. A Supreme Court ruling would provide no meaningful relief to Grand or anyone else."
FFRF argues that Article III of the Constitution restricts federal courts to resolving actual cases and controversies. A plaintiff must demonstrate a sufficiently concrete injury, and that controversy must remain alive throughout the litigation.
Grand's challenge fails on both counts, FFRF maintains. He cannot establish a credible threat of enforcement against activities the city acknowledges are permissible, and his departure from University Heights has rendered his requests for prospective relief moot.
FFRF warns that the case fits a troubling pattern of religious liberty litigation designed to secure sweeping constitutional precedents even when the underlying disputes are questionable or no longer live.
FFRF points to Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court's controversial 2022 school prayer decision, as another example of the dangers of overlooking whether a genuine legal controversy still exists. Former high school football coach Joe Kennedy moved nearly 3,000 miles from Washington state to Florida during litigation, establishing residency there. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, instead of ruling the case moot, ruled in his favor, dramatically weakening longstanding protections against school-sponsored religious activity. After winning his case, Kennedy returned to Bremerton to coach just one football game before resigning and heading back to Florida. That sweeping constitutional ruling occurred in a case in which the plaintiff appeared to no longer have a meaningful stake in the outcome.
"Standing and mootness aren't technicalities that courts can overlook whenever a politically charged case presents an attractive opportunity to make new law," adds Grover. "These constitutional safeguards protect everyone. Religious litigants should have exactly the same access to the courts as anyone else, but not preferential access."
FFRF regularly advocates for the constitutional rights of atheists, agnostics and other nonreligious Americans, who must also meet strict standing requirements when challenging government actions that violate the separation of state and church. Allowing religious plaintiffs to bypass those requirements would create an unacceptable double standard, FFRF warns.
FFRF is asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as improvidently granted or, alternatively, affirm its dismissal or lack of jurisdiction.
FFRF legal fellow Charlotte Gude prepared the amicus brief, with editing support from FFRF attorneys Sam Grover and Sammi Lawrence.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 40,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-warns-supreme-court-against-ruling-on-nonexistent-religious-liberty-dispute/
[Category: Religion]
FFRF Rebukes Trump for Turning Presidential Messages Into Christian Sermons
MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
November 2, 2026
FFRF rebukes Trump for turning presidential messages into Christian sermons
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling out President Trump for using the presidency to promote Christianity and perpetuate the false narrative that the United States is a Christian nation.
In two official presidential messages issued just one day apart, Trump celebrated Christian religious holidays while repeatedly portraying Christianity as the foundation of American identity, morality ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * November 2, 2026 FFRF rebukes Trump for turning presidential messages into Christian sermons The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling out President Trump for using the presidency to promote Christianity and perpetuate the false narrative that the United States is a Christian nation. In two official presidential messages issued just one day apart, Trump celebrated Christian religious holidays while repeatedly portraying Christianity as the foundation of American identity, moralityand national greatness. The messages, issued on Oct. 31 for Reformation Day and Nov. 1 for All Saints' Day, are the latest examples of the administration's troubling efforts to blur the constitutional separation between state and church.
"Donald Trump is president of the United States, not pastor-in-chief of a Christian congregation," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "His constitutional responsibility is to represent all Americans, not to use the White House as a platform for Christian evangelism. Our government derives its authority from 'We the People,' not from Jesus Christ."
In his Reformation Day message, Trump declared: "From the earliest days of our republic, prayer and faith in Almighty God have stood as the foundation of our strength, the source of our unity, and the fount of our greatness." He went further, explicitly connecting his administration's political agenda to Christian religious doctrine: "Guided by an unwavering faith in Jesus Christ, my administration is working to restore the moral and religious foundations that have sustained our republic for generations."
FFRF strongly objects to the president's suggestion that the United States was founded on Christianity or that his administration has a mandate to restore supposedly lost Christian foundations. The United States was founded on a secular Constitution, not the bible. The Constitution contains no reference to God or Jesus Christ, expressly prohibits religious tests for public office and guarantees that the government will neither establish religion nor interfere with its free exercise.
The nation's Founders deliberately rejected the European tradition of governments exercising religious authority. The First Amendment protects the religious liberty of all Americans precisely because the government has no business deciding which religious beliefs should guide the nation.
Trump's message also ignores the tens of millions of Americans who are not Christian, including the growing population of religiously unaffiliated Americans who now constitute roughly three in 10 adults.
The following day, Trump issued an equally sectarian All Saints' Day message, celebrating Catholic saints and emphasizing their influence on American culture.
The president cited cities, universities, hospitals and even the New Orleans Saints football team as examples of the enduring influence of Christianity on American life. He praised Catholic figures including Junipero Serra, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Katharine Drexel and Frances Xavier Cabrini.
However, the existence of religiously named cities, universities and football teams is hardly evidence that the United States is, or should be, a Christian nation. America's cultural history includes religious influences from many traditions, as well as the indispensable contributions of nonreligious Americans.
Trump's praise for Junipero Serra is particularly troubling when you take into account the history of California's Spanish missions, where Indigenous peoples experienced coercive conversion, forced labor and devastating cultural disruption. Romanticizing missionary expansion without acknowledging its victims presents a profoundly incomplete account of American history.
The All Saints' Day message concluded with an explicitly theological declaration about salvation through Jesus Christ: "Christians believe that through the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the grave has been conquered and eternal life has been opened to all who believe in Him."
There is nothing inherently objectionable about a president acknowledging religious holidays or extending good wishes to Americans who celebrate them. But Trump's messages go well beyond recognition. They promote the idea that Christianity is the defining source of American morality, unity and national identity, and explicitly connect the administration's governing mission to Christian faith. While Christians are free to celebrate their religious holidays and profess these beliefs, the president should not use official government communications to elevate Christian theology above the beliefs of other Americans.
FFRF emphasizes that these messages are not isolated incidents. They reflect the Trump administration's broader pattern of elevating Christianity through federal government institutions, rhetoric and policies, including its establishment of a White House Faith Office and a task force purportedly dedicated to eradicating anti-Christian bias. The administration's repeated insistence that Christianity must be restored to the center of American public life is especially alarming at a time when Christian nationalist movements are actively seeking to impose religious doctrines through public schools, government institutions and public policy.
The White House should be defending the constitutional rights of all Americans, not advancing a sectarian vision of the nation. America's strength has never depended on religious conformity. It comes from the constitutional promise that every person is free to believe, or not believe, without government favoritism or interference.
FFRF urges the president to respect that promise and to stop using official presidential communications to promote Christian nationalism.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 40,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-rebukes-trump-for-turning-presidential-messages-into-christian-sermons/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
November 2, 2026
FFRF rebukes Trump for turning presidential messages into Christian sermons
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling out President Trump for using the presidency to promote Christianity and perpetuate the false narrative that the United States is a Christian nation.
In two official presidential messages issued just one day apart, Trump celebrated Christian religious holidays while repeatedly portraying Christianity as the foundation of American identity, morality ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Nov. 3 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * November 2, 2026 FFRF rebukes Trump for turning presidential messages into Christian sermons The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling out President Trump for using the presidency to promote Christianity and perpetuate the false narrative that the United States is a Christian nation. In two official presidential messages issued just one day apart, Trump celebrated Christian religious holidays while repeatedly portraying Christianity as the foundation of American identity, moralityand national greatness. The messages, issued on Oct. 31 for Reformation Day and Nov. 1 for All Saints' Day, are the latest examples of the administration's troubling efforts to blur the constitutional separation between state and church.
"Donald Trump is president of the United States, not pastor-in-chief of a Christian congregation," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "His constitutional responsibility is to represent all Americans, not to use the White House as a platform for Christian evangelism. Our government derives its authority from 'We the People,' not from Jesus Christ."
In his Reformation Day message, Trump declared: "From the earliest days of our republic, prayer and faith in Almighty God have stood as the foundation of our strength, the source of our unity, and the fount of our greatness." He went further, explicitly connecting his administration's political agenda to Christian religious doctrine: "Guided by an unwavering faith in Jesus Christ, my administration is working to restore the moral and religious foundations that have sustained our republic for generations."
FFRF strongly objects to the president's suggestion that the United States was founded on Christianity or that his administration has a mandate to restore supposedly lost Christian foundations. The United States was founded on a secular Constitution, not the bible. The Constitution contains no reference to God or Jesus Christ, expressly prohibits religious tests for public office and guarantees that the government will neither establish religion nor interfere with its free exercise.
The nation's Founders deliberately rejected the European tradition of governments exercising religious authority. The First Amendment protects the religious liberty of all Americans precisely because the government has no business deciding which religious beliefs should guide the nation.
Trump's message also ignores the tens of millions of Americans who are not Christian, including the growing population of religiously unaffiliated Americans who now constitute roughly three in 10 adults.
The following day, Trump issued an equally sectarian All Saints' Day message, celebrating Catholic saints and emphasizing their influence on American culture.
The president cited cities, universities, hospitals and even the New Orleans Saints football team as examples of the enduring influence of Christianity on American life. He praised Catholic figures including Junipero Serra, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Katharine Drexel and Frances Xavier Cabrini.
However, the existence of religiously named cities, universities and football teams is hardly evidence that the United States is, or should be, a Christian nation. America's cultural history includes religious influences from many traditions, as well as the indispensable contributions of nonreligious Americans.
Trump's praise for Junipero Serra is particularly troubling when you take into account the history of California's Spanish missions, where Indigenous peoples experienced coercive conversion, forced labor and devastating cultural disruption. Romanticizing missionary expansion without acknowledging its victims presents a profoundly incomplete account of American history.
The All Saints' Day message concluded with an explicitly theological declaration about salvation through Jesus Christ: "Christians believe that through the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the grave has been conquered and eternal life has been opened to all who believe in Him."
There is nothing inherently objectionable about a president acknowledging religious holidays or extending good wishes to Americans who celebrate them. But Trump's messages go well beyond recognition. They promote the idea that Christianity is the defining source of American morality, unity and national identity, and explicitly connect the administration's governing mission to Christian faith. While Christians are free to celebrate their religious holidays and profess these beliefs, the president should not use official government communications to elevate Christian theology above the beliefs of other Americans.
FFRF emphasizes that these messages are not isolated incidents. They reflect the Trump administration's broader pattern of elevating Christianity through federal government institutions, rhetoric and policies, including its establishment of a White House Faith Office and a task force purportedly dedicated to eradicating anti-Christian bias. The administration's repeated insistence that Christianity must be restored to the center of American public life is especially alarming at a time when Christian nationalist movements are actively seeking to impose religious doctrines through public schools, government institutions and public policy.
The White House should be defending the constitutional rights of all Americans, not advancing a sectarian vision of the nation. America's strength has never depended on religious conformity. It comes from the constitutional promise that every person is free to believe, or not believe, without government favoritism or interference.
FFRF urges the president to respect that promise and to stop using official presidential communications to promote Christian nationalism.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 40,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-rebukes-trump-for-turning-presidential-messages-into-christian-sermons/
[Category: Religion]
WLF Urges Federal Court to Enforce FIFRA Preemption Against Artful Pleading in Roundup Cases
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Urges Federal Court to Enforce FIFRA Preemption Against Artful Pleading in Roundup Cases
*
"Allowing plaintiffs to evade preemption through clever labels would destroy the uniformity Congress demanded under FIFRA."
--Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
WASHINGTON, DC--On October 30 Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) urged a federal judge overseeing Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release: * * * WLF Urges Federal Court to Enforce FIFRA Preemption Against Artful Pleading in Roundup Cases * "Allowing plaintiffs to evade preemption through clever labels would destroy the uniformity Congress demanded under FIFRA." --Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation WASHINGTON, DC--On October 30 Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) urged a federal judge overseeing Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California tohold that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Joining the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on an amicus brief, WLF contends that plaintiffs cannot evade the Supreme Court's recent decision in Monsanto v. Durnell by merely relabeling failure-to-warn claims as design-defect or negligence theories.
The case stems from lawsuits alleging that exposure to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In June 2026, the Supreme Court held in Durnell that FIFRA expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims seeking cancer warnings beyond those approved by the EPA. Judge Vince Chhabria then invited MDL amicus briefing on whether that holding also preempts negligence, design-defect, and warranty claims under the laws of six states.
In its amicus brief, WLF argues that preemption turns on the substance of a claim, not the label plaintiffs affix to it. Any theory that would require a warning not on the EPA-approved label is preempted, regardless of how plaintiffs style the claim. Allowing artful pleading to defeat FIFRA would undermine nationwide uniformity, empower lay juries to override expert agency judgments, and threaten identical preemption provisions in other federal statutes.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/11/02/communicating/wlf-urges-federal-court-to-enforce-fifra-preemption-against-artful-pleading-in-roundup-cases/
* * *
WLF Urges Federal Court to Enforce FIFRA Preemption Against Artful Pleading in Roundup Cases
*
"Allowing plaintiffs to evade preemption through clever labels would destroy the uniformity Congress demanded under FIFRA."
--Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
WASHINGTON, DC--On October 30 Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) urged a federal judge overseeing Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release: * * * WLF Urges Federal Court to Enforce FIFRA Preemption Against Artful Pleading in Roundup Cases * "Allowing plaintiffs to evade preemption through clever labels would destroy the uniformity Congress demanded under FIFRA." --Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation WASHINGTON, DC--On October 30 Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) urged a federal judge overseeing Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California tohold that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Joining the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on an amicus brief, WLF contends that plaintiffs cannot evade the Supreme Court's recent decision in Monsanto v. Durnell by merely relabeling failure-to-warn claims as design-defect or negligence theories.
The case stems from lawsuits alleging that exposure to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In June 2026, the Supreme Court held in Durnell that FIFRA expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims seeking cancer warnings beyond those approved by the EPA. Judge Vince Chhabria then invited MDL amicus briefing on whether that holding also preempts negligence, design-defect, and warranty claims under the laws of six states.
In its amicus brief, WLF argues that preemption turns on the substance of a claim, not the label plaintiffs affix to it. Any theory that would require a warning not on the EPA-approved label is preempted, regardless of how plaintiffs style the claim. Allowing artful pleading to defeat FIFRA would undermine nationwide uniformity, empower lay juries to override expert agency judgments, and threaten identical preemption provisions in other federal statutes.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/11/02/communicating/wlf-urges-federal-court-to-enforce-fifra-preemption-against-artful-pleading-in-roundup-cases/
Nobel Foundation: This year's artworks in Nobel Week Lights
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Nov. 2 -- The Nobel Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
This year's artworks in Nobel Week Lights
*
The Nobel Week is for the sixth year in a row celebrated with the light art festival Nobel Week Lights, where light art inspired by the Nobel Prize lights up a dark Stockholm in the middle of winter. The festival area has this year been expanded with light installations in both Tensta and the city centre. The festival runs during the period 6-14 December.
The artwork at Stockholm City Hall has become a much-loved part of the festival. This year, as the Nobel ... Show Full Article STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Nov. 2 -- The Nobel Foundation posted the following news release: * * * This year's artworks in Nobel Week Lights * The Nobel Week is for the sixth year in a row celebrated with the light art festival Nobel Week Lights, where light art inspired by the Nobel Prize lights up a dark Stockholm in the middle of winter. The festival area has this year been expanded with light installations in both Tensta and the city centre. The festival runs during the period 6-14 December. The artwork at Stockholm City Hall has become a much-loved part of the festival. This year, as the NobelPrize celebrates its 125th anniversary, two artworks can be seen by the building. Together Forward, this year's installation on the facade, highlights cancer research as a collaborative process, showing how advances are built on a network of ideas, methods and discoveries.
The light installation Nobel Today and Tomorrow emanates from the tower of Stockholm City Hall. Powerful green laser beams stretch across the night sky, connecting iconic sites linked to the Nobel Week celebrations in December: Stockholm Concert Hall, where the Nobel Prizes are awarded; Grand Hotel, where the laureates stay; and the Nobel Prize Museum in the Old Town. The fifth beam stretches towards Slussen, the site of the future home of Alfred Nobel's legacy.
"The artwork emanating from the tower of Stockholm City Hall illuminates buildings associated with Nobel Week, while also pointing towards the future. One of the beams stretches towards Slussen, where the new Nobel House will soon take shape. A building that will play an important role as we look ahead to the next 125 years," says Anna Rastner, Director of the Nobel Prize Museum.
The ocean as a common thread
The ocean emerges as a recurring theme in several of this year's artworks. In Cast Away, marine plastic waste and discarded fishing gear are transformed into shadow images that remind us of humanity's impact on the ocean. Creating Ocean Us, fifth-grade students from Husbygardsskolan have met with researchers and experts before making their own marine organisms, which come to life in a digital ecosystem at Stromparterren.
Submergence takes visitors deeper beneath the surface. Inspired by bioluminescent organisms and research awarded the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, the installation invites visitors to step into a sea of light. In The Sea Is History, inspired by a poem of the same name by literature laureate Derek Walcott, the sea instead becomes a witness to stories of movement, displacement, loss and survival.
The festival in Tensta
Nobel Week Lights returns to Tensta, where several of the artworks have been created through local collaborations and co-creation. At Tenstaplan, visitors can step onto the large-scale interactive artwork Interweave and shape its shifting patterns through their movements.
In Voices of Tensta, nine young people from Tech Tensta, together with poet Simon Matiwos, have interpreted the work of Nobel Peace Prize laureates Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela and Malala Yousafzai through their own poetry and spoken word. Here, young voices from Tensta share their perspectives on peace and change.
Many kinds of activities are organised in both the city centre and Tensta during the festival. Over 70 guided tours are offered in 12 languages, where Urdu, Hindi and Mandarin are new additions this year. The festival is free to visit.
The artworks can be viewed 16:00-22:00 every day between 5 and 13 December 2026.
See the full artwork programme with 19 light installations
About Nobel Week Lights
Nobel Week Lights is initiated, curated and produced by Annika Levin, Alexandra Manson, Lara Szabo Greisman from Troika Art. The event is part of the official Nobel Week programme and is presented by the Nobel Prize Museum with support from the City of Stockholm, The Swedish Cancer Society, Einar Mattsson AB, The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and Wallenberg Investments AB, the Erling-Persson Foundation and Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, as well as a number of additional partners. By means of light art, Nobel Week Lights serves as a tribute to the Nobel Prize laureates and their efforts to bring the greatest benefit to humankind.
***
Original text here: https://www.nobelprize.org/press-release/this-years-artworks-in-nobel-week-lights/
* * *
This year's artworks in Nobel Week Lights
*
The Nobel Week is for the sixth year in a row celebrated with the light art festival Nobel Week Lights, where light art inspired by the Nobel Prize lights up a dark Stockholm in the middle of winter. The festival area has this year been expanded with light installations in both Tensta and the city centre. The festival runs during the period 6-14 December.
The artwork at Stockholm City Hall has become a much-loved part of the festival. This year, as the Nobel ... Show Full Article STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Nov. 2 -- The Nobel Foundation posted the following news release: * * * This year's artworks in Nobel Week Lights * The Nobel Week is for the sixth year in a row celebrated with the light art festival Nobel Week Lights, where light art inspired by the Nobel Prize lights up a dark Stockholm in the middle of winter. The festival area has this year been expanded with light installations in both Tensta and the city centre. The festival runs during the period 6-14 December. The artwork at Stockholm City Hall has become a much-loved part of the festival. This year, as the NobelPrize celebrates its 125th anniversary, two artworks can be seen by the building. Together Forward, this year's installation on the facade, highlights cancer research as a collaborative process, showing how advances are built on a network of ideas, methods and discoveries.
The light installation Nobel Today and Tomorrow emanates from the tower of Stockholm City Hall. Powerful green laser beams stretch across the night sky, connecting iconic sites linked to the Nobel Week celebrations in December: Stockholm Concert Hall, where the Nobel Prizes are awarded; Grand Hotel, where the laureates stay; and the Nobel Prize Museum in the Old Town. The fifth beam stretches towards Slussen, the site of the future home of Alfred Nobel's legacy.
"The artwork emanating from the tower of Stockholm City Hall illuminates buildings associated with Nobel Week, while also pointing towards the future. One of the beams stretches towards Slussen, where the new Nobel House will soon take shape. A building that will play an important role as we look ahead to the next 125 years," says Anna Rastner, Director of the Nobel Prize Museum.
The ocean as a common thread
The ocean emerges as a recurring theme in several of this year's artworks. In Cast Away, marine plastic waste and discarded fishing gear are transformed into shadow images that remind us of humanity's impact on the ocean. Creating Ocean Us, fifth-grade students from Husbygardsskolan have met with researchers and experts before making their own marine organisms, which come to life in a digital ecosystem at Stromparterren.
Submergence takes visitors deeper beneath the surface. Inspired by bioluminescent organisms and research awarded the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, the installation invites visitors to step into a sea of light. In The Sea Is History, inspired by a poem of the same name by literature laureate Derek Walcott, the sea instead becomes a witness to stories of movement, displacement, loss and survival.
The festival in Tensta
Nobel Week Lights returns to Tensta, where several of the artworks have been created through local collaborations and co-creation. At Tenstaplan, visitors can step onto the large-scale interactive artwork Interweave and shape its shifting patterns through their movements.
In Voices of Tensta, nine young people from Tech Tensta, together with poet Simon Matiwos, have interpreted the work of Nobel Peace Prize laureates Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela and Malala Yousafzai through their own poetry and spoken word. Here, young voices from Tensta share their perspectives on peace and change.
Many kinds of activities are organised in both the city centre and Tensta during the festival. Over 70 guided tours are offered in 12 languages, where Urdu, Hindi and Mandarin are new additions this year. The festival is free to visit.
The artworks can be viewed 16:00-22:00 every day between 5 and 13 December 2026.
See the full artwork programme with 19 light installations
About Nobel Week Lights
Nobel Week Lights is initiated, curated and produced by Annika Levin, Alexandra Manson, Lara Szabo Greisman from Troika Art. The event is part of the official Nobel Week programme and is presented by the Nobel Prize Museum with support from the City of Stockholm, The Swedish Cancer Society, Einar Mattsson AB, The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and Wallenberg Investments AB, the Erling-Persson Foundation and Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, as well as a number of additional partners. By means of light art, Nobel Week Lights serves as a tribute to the Nobel Prize laureates and their efforts to bring the greatest benefit to humankind.
***
Original text here: https://www.nobelprize.org/press-release/this-years-artworks-in-nobel-week-lights/
Electrical Workers Successfully Defeat Illegal IBEW Union Strike Fines with National Right to Work Legal Aid
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Nov. 2 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Electrical Workers Successfully Defeat Illegal IBEW Union Strike Fines with National Right to Work Legal Aid
*
Following successful worker effort to remove the union from their workplace, Brent Electric employees force IBEW to rescind unlawful strike fines
Pryor, OK (November 2, 2026) - An Oklahoma electrical worker has prevailed in a legal fight against retaliatory strike fines issued by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 584 officials. Joey ... Show Full Article SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Nov. 2 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Electrical Workers Successfully Defeat Illegal IBEW Union Strike Fines with National Right to Work Legal Aid * Following successful worker effort to remove the union from their workplace, Brent Electric employees force IBEW to rescind unlawful strike fines Pryor, OK (November 2, 2026) - An Oklahoma electrical worker has prevailed in a legal fight against retaliatory strike fines issued by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 584 officials. JoeyBlankenship-Scott, of the Brent Electric Company, Inc., won the victory with free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
When IBEW Local 584 union bosses ordered a strike in June 2024, Blankenship-Scott and two coworkers exercised their legal right to resign from the union and return to work. Even though the workers resigned before returning to work and were therefore no longer legally subject to internal union "discipline," IBEW Local 584 officials informed the workers that not only would they refuse to honor the workers' valid resignations, they also intended to impose "strike fines" of up to $12,000 each, ostensibly for continuing to work in defiance of the union strike demand.
IBEW Local 584 officials' refusal to recognize the employees' valid resignations has no basis in law, and inflicting outrageous fines on employees who are not voluntary union members violates federal law. So with the assistance of Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Blankenship-Scott filed unfair labor practice charges against IBEW Local 584 with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 14.
Brent Electric workers who opposed the union collected signatures for a decertification election to formally end IBEW officials' so-called representation at their workplace. After the decertification petition was filed in November 2024, IBEW filed "blocking charges" seeking to block the vote with unproven allegations against the workers' employer.
Union Bosses' Attempt to Block Vote Fails, Forced to Rescind Illegal Strike Fines
By April, with the NLRB finally investigating that charge, the union withdrew it, likely to avoid the NLRB formally determining that the charge was meritless. At that point, the election was scheduled for May 14, 2025. However, two days before the vote, the IBEW effectively conceded that it would lose the vote by sending a letter disclaiming interest in maintaining monopoly power over the Brent Electric workers.
While this disclaimer freed the employees of an unwanted union, the NLRB continued to investigate the unfair labor practice charges against IBEW for the illegal strike fines. Rather than face a formal prosecution and a potential trial by the Board for violating federal law by issuing the unlawful strike fines against employees who had resigned from the union, IBEW Local 584 union bosses recently decided to back down and settle the case.
Under the settlement, IBEW union bosses will rescind all fines against the three employees and refrain from interfering with the workers' right to resign their union membership. The union is also required to notify other workers, including through the union's intranet, of the workers unrestricted legal right to resign their union membership, and to be free from union attempts to impose internal union fines on them post-resignation.
This case is just the latest in a long history of union officials attempting to retaliate against employees who resign their union membership with massive fines. For example, in June 2025, Evansville, Indiana, electrician Brian Head won a legal battle against another IBEW affiliate (Local 16) after union officials attempted to fine him $1.29 million because he resigned from the union to start a non-union electrical business, and rebuffed union boss demands that he hand his new business over to union control.
"Once again, union bosses have been caught red-handed trying to illegally extort rank-and-file workers who exercised their right to break free of the union and work despite the IBEW's strike demands," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "No one should have to choose between feeding their family and toeing the union line, and we're proud to assist these workers in standing up to union bullies.
"It shouldn't take the assistance of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys just to force thuggish union officials to abide by federal law, but we will continue to be a resource for all workers wanting to exercise their freedom to work," added Mix.
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/electrical-worker-defeats-illegal-strike-fines-11022026/ (TNSmlt)
* * *
Electrical Workers Successfully Defeat Illegal IBEW Union Strike Fines with National Right to Work Legal Aid
*
Following successful worker effort to remove the union from their workplace, Brent Electric employees force IBEW to rescind unlawful strike fines
Pryor, OK (November 2, 2026) - An Oklahoma electrical worker has prevailed in a legal fight against retaliatory strike fines issued by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 584 officials. Joey ... Show Full Article SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Nov. 2 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Electrical Workers Successfully Defeat Illegal IBEW Union Strike Fines with National Right to Work Legal Aid * Following successful worker effort to remove the union from their workplace, Brent Electric employees force IBEW to rescind unlawful strike fines Pryor, OK (November 2, 2026) - An Oklahoma electrical worker has prevailed in a legal fight against retaliatory strike fines issued by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 584 officials. JoeyBlankenship-Scott, of the Brent Electric Company, Inc., won the victory with free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
When IBEW Local 584 union bosses ordered a strike in June 2024, Blankenship-Scott and two coworkers exercised their legal right to resign from the union and return to work. Even though the workers resigned before returning to work and were therefore no longer legally subject to internal union "discipline," IBEW Local 584 officials informed the workers that not only would they refuse to honor the workers' valid resignations, they also intended to impose "strike fines" of up to $12,000 each, ostensibly for continuing to work in defiance of the union strike demand.
IBEW Local 584 officials' refusal to recognize the employees' valid resignations has no basis in law, and inflicting outrageous fines on employees who are not voluntary union members violates federal law. So with the assistance of Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Blankenship-Scott filed unfair labor practice charges against IBEW Local 584 with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 14.
Brent Electric workers who opposed the union collected signatures for a decertification election to formally end IBEW officials' so-called representation at their workplace. After the decertification petition was filed in November 2024, IBEW filed "blocking charges" seeking to block the vote with unproven allegations against the workers' employer.
Union Bosses' Attempt to Block Vote Fails, Forced to Rescind Illegal Strike Fines
By April, with the NLRB finally investigating that charge, the union withdrew it, likely to avoid the NLRB formally determining that the charge was meritless. At that point, the election was scheduled for May 14, 2025. However, two days before the vote, the IBEW effectively conceded that it would lose the vote by sending a letter disclaiming interest in maintaining monopoly power over the Brent Electric workers.
While this disclaimer freed the employees of an unwanted union, the NLRB continued to investigate the unfair labor practice charges against IBEW for the illegal strike fines. Rather than face a formal prosecution and a potential trial by the Board for violating federal law by issuing the unlawful strike fines against employees who had resigned from the union, IBEW Local 584 union bosses recently decided to back down and settle the case.
Under the settlement, IBEW union bosses will rescind all fines against the three employees and refrain from interfering with the workers' right to resign their union membership. The union is also required to notify other workers, including through the union's intranet, of the workers unrestricted legal right to resign their union membership, and to be free from union attempts to impose internal union fines on them post-resignation.
This case is just the latest in a long history of union officials attempting to retaliate against employees who resign their union membership with massive fines. For example, in June 2025, Evansville, Indiana, electrician Brian Head won a legal battle against another IBEW affiliate (Local 16) after union officials attempted to fine him $1.29 million because he resigned from the union to start a non-union electrical business, and rebuffed union boss demands that he hand his new business over to union control.
"Once again, union bosses have been caught red-handed trying to illegally extort rank-and-file workers who exercised their right to break free of the union and work despite the IBEW's strike demands," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "No one should have to choose between feeding their family and toeing the union line, and we're proud to assist these workers in standing up to union bullies.
"It shouldn't take the assistance of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys just to force thuggish union officials to abide by federal law, but we will continue to be a resource for all workers wanting to exercise their freedom to work," added Mix.
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/electrical-worker-defeats-illegal-strike-fines-11022026/ (TNSmlt)