SUMMARY: South Carolina softball’s first-year head coach Ashley Chastain Woodard was named national Coach of the Year by D1Softball. She led the Gamecocks to a program-best 44-17 record, their first NCAA Super Regional appearance since 2018, and their first winning SEC record since 2018. The team set or tied five program records, including runs, RBIs, walks, doubles, and fielding percentage, while achieving a strong schedule and multiple series wins over top-ranked opponents. Individually, Arianna Rodi and Quincee Lilio set new records for walks, with Rodi also breaking the home run record. This marked Woodard’s sixth coaching season and third straight NCAA appearance.
SUMMARY: President Donald Trump pardoned reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, convicted three years ago of bank fraud and tax evasion, leading to their immediate release from federal prisons. The couple, famed for “Chrisley Knows Best,” were serving long sentences after prosecutors accused them of fraudulent loans and hiding income while living lavishly. Todd was freed from a Florida prison; Julie left a Kentucky facility. Their daughter, Savannah Chrisley, a vocal Trump supporter, awaited Todd’s release, expressing eagerness for family reunification after 2½ years apart. Their attorney claimed the pardon corrected an injustice linked to their conservative views. The convictions were upheld on appeal.
www.thecentersquare.com – By David Beasley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-05-28 16:06:00
A South Carolina judge will hear arguments on whether to dismiss Charleston’s 2020 climate-change lawsuit against 24 oil and gas companies accused of causing global warming by selling fossil fuels. The lawsuit claims these companies knew for over 50 years their products would worsen flooding but hid the truth for profit. Charleston seeks monetary damages. The case was moved back to state court after Chevron requested federal jurisdiction. President Trump issued an executive order opposing such state lawsuits, citing energy cost impacts and federalism concerns. Despite this, climate lawsuits are expected to increase, especially among left-leaning municipalities backed by law firms willing to work pro bono.
(The Center Square) – A South Carolina judge is scheduled to hear arguments Thursday and Friday on whether to dismiss a climate-change lawsuit by the city of Charleston against 24 oil and gas companies.
In the lawsuit filed in 2020, the city said the companies contributed to greenhouse gas pollution, global warming, and climate change by selling fossil fuel products.
“As this lawsuit shows, these companies have known for more than 50 years that their products were going to cause the worst flooding the world has seen since Noah built the Ark,” then mayor John Tecklenburg said in a statement when the lawsuit was filed. “And instead of warning us, they covered up the truth and turned our flooding problems into their profits. That was wrong, and this lawsuit is all about holding them accountable for that multi-decade campaign of deception.”
The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages.
Charleston’s lawsuit is one of 20 filed nationwide by state and local governments against oil companies, according to federal court records.
Two of the defendants in the Charleston case, Chevron Corp. and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., tried to have the case tried in federal court. But U.S. District Court Judge Richard Mark Gergel in 2023 moved it back to state court.
On April 8, President Donald Trump issued an executive order instructing the U.S. attorney general to take action to stop state climate change lawsuits against oil companies.
“These state laws and policies weaken our national security and devastate Americans by driving up energy costs for families coast-to-coast, despite some of these families not living or voting in states with these crippling policies,” the executive order states. “These laws and policies also undermine federalism by projecting the regulatory preferences of a few states into all states. Americans must be permitted to heat their homes, fuel their cars, and have peace of mind – free from policies that make energy more expensive and inevitably degrade quality of life.”
The Center Square was unsuccessful before publication getting comment from Charleston Mayor William Cogswell.
South Carolina Circuit Court Judge William Young is scheduled to hear arguments Thursday and Friday on the oil companies’ motion to dismiss the Charleston lawsuit.
Regardless of the ruling in the South Carolina case and Trump’s executive order, these types of lawsuits aren’t likely to go away anytime soon, Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told The Center Square.
“I think the trajectory of the climate lawsuits is probably going to increase,” Isacc said. “As long as we have leftist elected municipalities in states who recognize there is a law firm out there that will do this for them for free, I think you are going to continue to have people take the hook.”
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Right
The article largely reports on the lawsuit and related political actions in a factual manner, citing statements from involved parties and officials without overt editorializing. However, the inclusion of language such as quoting President Trump’s executive order criticizing state climate lawsuits for raising energy costs and the choice of a source like Jason Isaac of the American Energy Institute—who uses the phrase “leftist elected municipalities”—introduces framing that leans toward a center-right perspective. The article highlights arguments against the climate change lawsuits and stresses concerns about economic and regulatory impacts, which are common themes in center-right discourse. Therefore, while the article presents information on both sides, the selection and framing of quotes suggest a subtle center-right bias rather than a fully neutral stance.
Democratic Gov. Josh Stein’s lawsuit challenging the transfer of his election appointment power to the Republican state auditor is effectively over after the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the shift in a 5-2 ruling. The court ruled the legislature can assign executive powers within the executive branch, dismissing separation of powers concerns. Democratic justices dissented, arguing the decision ignores voter intent and undermines executive authority. Critics worry this sets a precedent for legislative control over elected officials’ powers. Democrats plan to engage voters, monitor election boards, and aim to flip court seats in 2028 to counterbalance Republican influence.
by Sarah Michels, Carolina Public Press May 28, 2025
Technically, Democratic Gov. Josh Stein’s lawsuit against Republican leaders over the transfer of his election appointment power to the state auditor could go on for a number of months. But practically, it’s over.
Friday evening, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the North Carolina Court of Appeals did not break any rules by allowing the power shift to go into effect on May 1, when a new State Board of Elections was appointed by Republican State Auditor Dave Boliek.
While the court did not technically rule on the state constitutional questions at play — does the power shift violate separation of powers or the governor’s duty to faithfully execute the law? — it clearly signaled its approval of the power shift in a 5-2 decision.
Now, the majority Republican Court of Appeals will decide on those questions.
Ultimately, its decision may be appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court to review again. Since the case deals only with the state constitution, there are no federal court appeal options, said Martin Warf, attorney for Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger.
North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton confirmed.
“State court is where this is going to begin and die,” she said. “That’s what Republicans knew going into it.”
How we got here
For nearly a decade, Republican lawmakers have pushed for an elections appointment power shift.
Their various attempts have included a failed constitutional amendment creating an eight-member board with equal party representation, a law shifting appointment power to the legislature and an elimination of the board altogether to form a new Bipartisan State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement.
All have fallen short. Until now.
Last December, the legislature passed Senate Bill 382, a Hurricane Helene relief bill that also shifted elections appointment power from the governor to the state auditor, a newly Republican-held office.
In April, the Wake County Superior Court ruled 2-1 that taking away the governor’s election appointment power would hinder his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
A week later, an anonymous three-judge panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals handed down a ruling allowing the power shift to go into effect while they considered the issue. The ruling did not include an explanation.
While Stein asked for the state Supreme Court to step in and postpone the changes until a full decision was made, the court did not do so. If that wasn’t enough to make the court’s stance clear, its Friday opinion certainly did the job.
According to the court’s reading of the state Constitution, the governor may head the executive branch, but he doesn’t “unilaterally exercise the executive power.” That’s for all 10 Council of State members, including the auditor, to share. Furthermore, the General Assembly is granted power under the state Constitution to assign many of those executive powers as they please, the opinion stated.
Separation of powers issues brought up by Stein are irrelevant, the opinion stated. While the legislature is the one making the decisions, the transfer of power is contained within the executive branch.
Democratic Justices Anita Earls and Allison Riggs dissented.
Earls accused her colleagues of “gaslighting” by claiming to not decide the constitutional issue while laying out their logic for supporting the power shift anyways. The majority opinion ignores precedent on executive power, and gives the legislature free rein to “reshuffle the powers and responsibilities of constitutional officers who are elected by the entire state,” she added.
“If the voters of North Carolina wanted a Republican official to control the State Board of Elections, they could have elected a Republican Governor,” Earls wrote. “If they wanted David Boliek (the Auditor) in particular to run our elections, they could have elected him Governor. The voters did not.”
After power shift, what’s next?
Democracy North Carolina policy director Katelin Kaiser worries that the state Supreme Court ruling will create a culture of fear.
What if Democratic Superintendent of Public Instruction Mo Green pushes back on the legislature’s stance on DEI? Are they going to modify his powers, Kaiser asked.
“It creates a requirement of loyalty to the North Carolina General Assembly,” she said. “Rather than the separation and balance of powers, it’s the General Assembly’s say, and if you don’t fall in line, you could be next.”
The courts won’t offer any relief, Clayton said, so instead she’s looking to another source of power: people’s voices.
It’s as important now as ever for educated voters to show up to election board meetings, Clayton said.
“It means making sure that we are present and vocal, and that we’re not also appointing folks that are going to just agree with what the Republican majority on the board says,” she said.
Further down the line, re-electing Justice Earls and flipping Republican state Supreme Court seats in 2028 is the Democratic plan, she said.
“We know that Republicans do not believe in fair and impartial judgments anymore,” Clayton said. “They believe in partisan acts and empowering their own party to ignore the Constitution.”
Kaisersaid Democracy NC will bolster its county election board monitoring program and continue advocating for elections officials. For example, they’d like the legislature to change a 1999 law that allows county elections directors to be paid as little as $12 an hour.
“We’ve seen time and time again that their workload increases, and yet, many times the state does nothing to support,” she said.
There’s no question that Republican legislators will win the case, Common Cause policy director Ann Webb said. The only question is how long it will take until the litigation officially ends.
“I think the question is really up to the Governor at this point, whether to continue to pursue this case, recognizing that it’s been signaled from both of these courts where they stand,” Webb said.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
This article tends to present the issues from a perspective sympathetic to Democratic viewpoints, emphasizing concerns about Republican-led power shifts in North Carolina’s election appointment process. It highlights Democratic criticisms and warnings about potential erosion of checks and balances, quoting Democratic officials and advocacy groups extensively. At the same time, it provides detailed factual court rulings and includes Republican positions, though with less emphasis. The tone and framing suggest a moderate left-leaning bias focused on defending democratic norms and questioning conservative legislative actions.
