"The governor also requested the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to waive federal ultra-low sulfur diesel requirements to boost supply."
I'm not sure I can fully express how badly this is likely to backfire. Modern diesels can't handle anything but ULSD.
www.texastribune.org/2026/09/28/t...
texastribune.org
Abbott declares disaster over high diesel prices in Texas
Monday marks seven months since the U.S.-Iran war began, which has restricted oil and gas exports from the Middle East, raising prices ahead of the Nov. 3 election.
![House is a privilege—not a right. The President has set out his factual findings and provided
Plaintiffs an opportunity to contest this decision by 5:00 PM Friday, September 25, 2026.
Plaintiffs ask this Court to enjoin the President to provide them with immediate, continued
access to the White House complex, contrary to his personal judgment, on three purported grounds.
All fail. First, the President’s actions are lawful under the First Amendment. While the D.C. Circuit
has held that some areas of the White House grounds constitute a nonpublic forum, Sherrill v.
Knight, 569 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1977), that decision is wrong and should be overruled. But even
under Sherrill, the President’s actions must be sustained because the President has “compelling
interest[s]” in enforcing minimum standards for bona fide journalists and safeguarding national
security information. At the very least, the Government may control reporters’ access to restricted
presidential areas, such as the Oval Office, even for viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. Associated
Press v. Budowich, No. 25-5109, 2025 WL 1649265 (D.C. Cir. June 6, 2025) (“AP”). Second, the
President’s actions were not retaliatory because the Government would have taken the same action
anyway, notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ speech criticizing the President—indeed, the President has not
revoked access to other outlets that have equally criticized the President. Third, Plaintiffs are
unlikely to prevail on their due process claims because, even if they have a constitutional right to](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bfdiyietterineb3cvu3ddco/bafkreictrb2d32eol2ugcdj7pgsdllftmzcwtar4fj6oqf537cyaqp5atu)
![A screenshot of a Reddit post from the r/LegalAdviceUK subreddit by user Dijstraanon, titled "FtM transgender facing two different issues at work? England."
The post text reads:
"Brother in law is trans FtM and presents fully as a man. He's now facing an impossible situation at work with his employer telling him that due to recent legislation he must use the toilet of his birth gender. BUT several female colleagues have raised a grievance about him using their gendered toilet.
His employer has told him that he cannot use the toilet while he is at work until they sort it out and cannot give him a timeframe to do so. They do [cut off] have disabled separate toilets.
In the mean time one of his female colleagues has accused him of sexual harassment because he was used their gendered toilet. His menstrual cycle meant he needed to use the toilet.
He's been with the employer for just over 5 years but only in this location for 18 months. The location is mainly male with just a handful of females, and his workshop only has male toilets.
I do not know how to support him and as he's not in a union there is no one to turn too right now."
The post has an orange "Comments Moderated" tag, 169 upvotes, and 134 comments.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:sefgphqp2xqwh2hawaixykwz/bafkreigy6jrfjxyegrf7h4wzz3yptwmzobhjrd3k5zjoxwd75r6ulxzsyq)
