By ALICIA RANCILIO and ANDREW DALTON, Associated Press

Sunday’s 77th Primetime Emmy Awards arrive with clear favorites but few sure things.

Will the acclaim for “Adolescence” carry it to limited series dominance, or will “The Penguin” complete a run that began with big nomination numbers and continued with a big performance at the Creative Arts Emmys? Will top overall nominee “Severance” reign like “Succession” and “Shogun” did before it? And can any comedy stop “The Studio?”

This image released by Apple TV+ shows Ike Barinholtz, from left, Kathryn Hahn, Chase Sui Wonders and Seth Rogen in a scene from “The Studio.” (Apple TV+ via AP)

Associated Press Writers Alicia Rancilio and Andrew Dalton share their predictions in 10 top categories, along with a bonus pick.

Best drama

Nominees: “Andor,” “Paradise,” “Severance,” “Slow Horses,” “The Diplomat,” “The Pitt,” “The Last of Us,” “The White Lotus”

RANCILIO: “Severance” and “The White Lotus” were the most talked about shows of the year. But “The White Lotus” seems made more for the acting categories. I’m going to say “Severance” will take this trophy.

DALTON: “Severance” felt like the peak of the prestige TV year when its episodes were rolling out. Yet as Emmys week arrives a “Shogun”-style sweep seems extremely unlikely. Still, it has felt destined for this award since halfway through its second season and despite the surges of “The White Lotus” and “The Pitt,” it’s going to win here.

Best actor in a drama

Nominees: Sterling K. Brown, “Paradise” ; Gary Oldman, “Slow Horses” ; Pedro Pascal, “The Last of Us”; Adam Scott, “Severance” ; Noah Wyle, “The Pitt”

DALTON: Noah Wyle’s narrative is too powerful to deny. He gets five nominations without a win for “ER,” only to come back 30 years later and triumph for playing an older, warm-but-world-weary version of an emergency doctor on “The Pitt.” Fortunately, his actual performance was even more powerful than his personal story. His win will be well deserved on the merits.

RANCILIO: Hollywood loves a comeback and it’s time for Wyle to get his flowers. And, like you said, his win will be well deserved. Wyle’s performance is not just powerful but his character Dr. Michael “Robby” Robinavitch is the kind of teacher, manager and, yes, doctor we all wish we had. I also saw Wyle say in an interview that he does actually know how to perform stitches, and that’s pretty cool.

This image released by Max shows Noah Wyle in a scene from “The Pitt.” (Warrick Page/MAX via AP)

Best actress in a drama

Nominees: Kathy Bates, “Matlock”; Sharon Horgan, “Bad Sisters”; Britt Lower, “Severance”; Bella Ramsey, “The Last of Us”; Keri Russell, “The Diplomat”

RANCILIO: See above about Wyle for why I think Emmy voters will check the box for Kathy Bates. Having said that, Bates’ Maddie Matlock is such a layered performance of someone-seeking- justice-who-can-occasionally-feel-guilty. People are not all one thing, life is complicated, and Bates nails that.

DALTON: Bates raced to the front soon after “Matlock” premiered and it still feels like she’ll close the deal. It’ll be well-deserved for one of our great actors giving a bravura performance on the kind of network procedural that has been all-but-absent from the Emmys for years now.

Best supporting actress in a drama

Nominees: Patricia Arquette, “Severance”; Carrie Coon, “The White Lotus”; Katherine LaNasa, “The Pitt”; Julianne Nicholson, “Paradise”; Parker Posey, “The White Lotus”; Natasha Rothwell, “The White Lotus”; Aimee Lee Wood, “The White Lotus”

DALTON: It’s nuts that the women of “The White Lotus” got four nominations in this category and it almost doesn’t feel like enough. I’d’ve liked to see the same number for the doctors and nurses of “The Pitt.” My heart here is with Katherine LaNasa, whose Nurse Dana was the best character in a hospital full of them. But my head tells me Carrie Coon will win as the best of many great wine-soaked and pill-addled performances on “The White Lotus.”

RANCILIO: This is a tough one because “The White Lotus” women have cornered the market but ultimately I think Parker Posey will prevail. Just like Jennifer Coolidge before her, Posey’s lines on the show weren’t just memorable, they were meme-worthy. And, I too, “don’t feel at this age I’m meant to live an uncomfortable life.”

Best supporting actor in a drama

Nominees: Zach Cherry, “Severance”; Walton Goggins, “The White Lotus”; Jason Isaacs, “The White Lotus”; James Marsden, “Paradise”; Sam Rockwell, “The White Lotus”; Tramell Tillman, “Severance”; John Turturro, “Severance”

RANCILIO: I’m going to go with Walton Goggins here because this year he not only turned in another great acting performance but he’s been experiencing a bit of what’s known as a Pedro Pascal “zaddy moment” that likely put him at top of mind with voters.

DALTON: Goggins’ gaze during co-star and fellow nominee Sam Rockwell’s epic sobriety speech was one of TV’s most unforgettable images of the year. But Tramell Tillman produced several such moments, from his vicious banishment of John Turturo while wearing sharp ski gear to his drum-line dance with an interoffice marching band. And underneath the flash he showed an unknowable depth and inner life. He should get the lone acting win for “Severance.”

Best comedy

Nominees: “Hacks,” “The Bear,” “The Studio,” “Only Murders in the Building,” “Abbott Elementary,” “Nobody Wants This,” “Shrinking,” “What We Do in the Shadows”

DALTON: The blockbuster bounty of nominations pulled in by “The Studio” convinced me immediately that it was going to win best comedy amid beloved but stale competition. Bank on it.

RANCILIO: “The Studio” will win, but I’d like to give a sincere slow clap to each of the other nominees except “The Bear,” which has never been a comedy.

Best actor in a comedy

Nominees: Seth Rogen, “The Studio”; Martin Short, “Only Murders in the Building”; Jeremy Allen-White, “The Bear”; Adam Brody, “Nobody Wants This”; Jason Segel, “Shrinking”

RANCILIO: About this time last year, Adam Brody’s performance in “Nobody Wants This” made me both giddy and nostalgic for the early aughts when he made nerds cool. Did you feel it too? Those feelings have not waned, but logic tells me Seth Rogen will walk away with a win.

DALTON: Brody’s charm is endless. He’ll use it to look gracious in defeat. Rogen took his well-established weedy persona to a place that both maintained what people love about him and brought new comic dimensions that even his mother could appreciate. He’ll get his first of many Emmys.

Best actress in a comedy

Nominees: Uzo Aduba, “The Residence”; Kristen Bell, “Nobody Wants This”; Quinta Brunson, “Abbott Elementary”; Jean Smart, “Hacks”; Ayo Edebiri, “The Bear”

DALTON: Emmy voters have never hesitated to keep picking the same winner. See Julia Louis-Dreyfus taking this trophy six straight times for “Veep.” Jean Smart has won for all three seasons of “Hacks” so far, and I’ll keep picking her until she loses.

RANCILIO: No disrespect to Louis-Dreyfus or to Smart but I felt then and now that there should be a cap on nominations for the same role. It gets to a point where you’re like, “We get it, Kelsey, you’re really good at playing Frasier.” Alas, I do not make the rules and so Smart will win.

Best limited series

Nominees: “Adolescence,” “The Penguin,” “Dying for Sex,” “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story,” “Black Mirror”

RANCILIO: If “Adolescence” doesn’t win here I’d be stunned. That is all.

DALTON: I’d be just as stunned. This is the surest thing of the night. It has to win. It’s too great a piece of art for voters to snub.

This image released by Netflix shows Mark Stanley, from left, Owen Cooper and Stephen Graham in a scene from “Adolescence.” (Netflix via AP)

Best actor in a limited series

Nominees: Colin Farrell, “The Penguin”; Stephen Graham, “Adolescence”; Jake Gyllenhaal, “Presumed Innocent”; Brian Tyree Henry, “Dope Thief”; Cooper Koch, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story”

DALTON: I think the real winner of this category should be Owen Cooper from “Adolescence,” whose lead-worthy performance as a child accused of murder was just astonishing. But like almost all uh, adolescents, he’s stuck in supporting. So I’m picking his TV dad, Stephen Graham, whose performance included the greatest visit to a home improvement store in screen history.

RANCILIO: I agree Cooper should be a contender in this category. It’s almost like Netflix accidentally switched the lead and supporting actor submissions for “Adolescence” so here we are. However, I’m going to go with Brian Tyree Henry. He’s not just extraordinary in “Dope Thief” but I think he’s very well-liked in general and Hollywood is a popularity contest.

Best actress in a limited series

Nominees: Cate Blanchett, “Disclaimer”; Meghann Fahy, “Sirens”; Rashida Jones, “Black Mirror”; Cristin Milioti, “The Penguin”; Michelle Williams, “Dying for Sex”

RANCILIO: Cristin Milioti fans already knew she could do stage work from “Once” and also comedy from “How I Met Your Mother” and the movie “Palm Springs.” Her work in “The Penguin” demonstrated that she has also mastered drama and can strike the right balance if she’s playing an unhinged maniac.

DALTON: The Emmys’ unprecedented embrace of a franchise show like “The Penguin,” with its 23 noms and eight Creative Arts wins, has been the surprise of the season so far. And Milioti somehow almost steals the show from Colin Farrell and his jowls. But Michelle Williams was a great new semi-stretch for Michelle Williams, who is building a body of TV work comparable to her big screen achievements. I’ll take her by a hair.

This image released by HBO shows Cristin Milioti in a scene from “The Penguin.” (HBO via AP)

Wild card pick

DALTON: There’s no award for best talk show host, but when Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show” wins best talk series it’ll be a tribute to a beloved figure whose unceremonious cancellation for reasons perceived as political outraged many of his industry peers. And he’ll get his own trophy as an executive producer.

RANCILIO: Martin Short could pull off a semi-surprise win for best actor in a comedy over Rogen for “Only Murders” and I wouldn’t be mad at it.

By PAUL WISEMAN, Associated Press Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. producer prices fell unexpectedly last month, dropping 0.1% from July.

The Labor Department reported Wednesday that its producer price index — which captures inflation in the supply chain before it hits consumers — showed that wholesale inflation decelerated in August after advancing 0.7% in July. Wholesale services prices fell 0.2% from July on smaller profit margins at retailers and wholesalers, which might be a sign that those companies are absorbing the cost of President Donald Trump’s sweeping taxes on imports.

Related Articles

Nepal internet crackdown part of global trend toward suppressing online freedom

Competition heats up for ‘Coolest Thing Made in Minnesota’ as 32 products remain

Black McDonald’s operators detail history of alleged racial discrimination in lawsuit

Cracker Barrel suspends plans to remodel restaurants after logo blowup

US household income rose slightly last year, roughly matching 2019 level

Compared to a year earlier, producer prices rose 2.6%.

Excluding volatile food and energy prices, so-called core producer prices also fell 0.1% from July and were up 2.8% from a year earlier.

The numbers were lower than economists had forecast.

The wholesale price report came out day before the Labor Department releases its consumer price index. The CPI is expected to show that consumer price inflation picked up slightly last month, rising 0.3% from July, an uptick from a 0.2% increase the month before. Compared with a year earlier, consumer prices are expected to have risen 2.9% in August, up from a 2.7% year-over-year increase in July.

Wholesale prices can offer an early look at where consumer inflation might be headed. Economists also watch it because some of its components, notably measures of health care and financial services, flow into the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge — the personal consumption expenditures, or PCE, price index.

Editor’s Note: The following is adapted from the introduction to The Texas Civil Rights Project: How We Built a Social Justice Movement by Jim Harrington, who in 1990 founded the groundbreaking nonprofit from which the book takes its title and led the group for the next 25 years. © 2025, published with permission from the University of Texas Press.

Some people along the way have called me a “badass.” I never aspired to be a badass and usually don’t think of myself as one. For me, my career was all about being a zealous advocate for people who are poor, disenfranchised, and oppressed. What matters is their lives, their stories, their histories, their hope, and walking alongside them on the journey toward justice. 

Being part of any movement for justice, I admit, is pretty badass. That is certainly true of the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) and the people with whom we collaborated. One colleague, herself a fervent activist, made her own assessment by gifting me with a pair of bright-red professional boxing gloves, which I hung from the bookcase behind my desk.

My part in TCRP is not small, but my aim is to focus the lens on what the community and TCRP did together for greater equity. TCRP always strove to focus on those for whom we advocated. Our goal was to be part of the valiant team, not its captain, making justice. Everyone helped carry the ball. I was lucky to be a player.

TCRP took guidance from individuals and grassroots organizations trying to better the lives of those around them. We did our best to be their protector, advocate, and servant leader, to take direction from them and not the other way around.

Law is a tool, not an end in itself. Justice is the goal of all human rights undertakings—everything in “right relationship,” as the philosophers and Scriptures put it. Right relationship is not status quo and does not appear on the scene without arduous struggle and fundamental social readjustment. Right relationship means the people have power, all the people.

Two memories about keeping law in perspective always stayed on my mind as an attorney. One is a meeting between the labor leader César Chávez and a dozen prospective volunteer lawyers on a chilly Saturday morning in a small vacant rural house in the Rio Grande Valley in December 1976. The local United Farm Workers (UFW) branch was beginning to reorganize.

There were the customary polite handshakes and warm greetings. We all were in awe of César, of course. He was our hero. After the pleasantries, we finally sat down on old folding chairs in a circle filling out the small, empty living room of the unheated house.

César started the meeting with generous thanks and then before long made a seemingly impolitic comment, which only he could get away with, that he did not like working with most lawyers. They spent too much time telling him how various laws impeded the UFW from doing something. He wanted lawyers who would figure out how to do something when the law was an obstacle and assist the movement when the law needed bending. That memory stuck and represented for me the UFW mantra: ¡Sí, se puede! “Yes, it can be done!”

That became the TCRP mantra, too. We turned it into a verb to better convey its message: how to creatively use the law, how to think outside the box, so that the law could help, not hinder, those we served. How to sí-se-puede.

From then until his death eighteen years later, it was my privilege to represent César and the UFW in Texas and learn from him. He was a brilliant strategist at using litigation hand-in-glove with organizing. He could be charming in person with audiences but also fierce in summoning people to action. He was like a grandfather with our young kids at breakfast when he stayed overnight. He would sit at the end of the table while they were eating their cereal before leaving for the school bus and chat them up about school, what they liked, favorite class—the regular questions. He was always smiling and laughing with them.

The second memory is a pithy summary of César’s point: a wizened migrant farm laborer and dogged UFW organizer, Baltazar “Don Balta” Saldaña, expressing gleefully a few times that “we have a lawyer on our side.” He knew from experience how essential that was for any gritty organizing and hard-fought social action to join forces with a legal team.

Don Balta, as we respectfully called him, had lost his right hand in a farm accident but could still outwork any two other people. His sons and daughters, now young adults, had the same labor ethic and dedication to the movement. They migrated from McAllen to California’s fields, a broiling 1,800-mile desert drive, every year for much of their lives and were proud huelguistas (UFW strikers), whenever César needed them.

TCRP was unique in being the only community-based civil rights organization of its kind in Texas, perhaps the country. We lived under a hybrid model, blending statewide or national impact litigation with on-the-ground community legal assistance. Our emphasis was on developing and protecting human rights in Texas. Our assistance came without cost to those who needed it. Our only regret was that we had the capacity to help only about five percent of those who sought us out, such was the need.

As time barreled on, I saw more clearly that people’s struggles today lived in the struggles of those who went before. Today’s struggles, like theirs, help bend the long arc of the moral universe a bit more toward justice, as Martin Luther King Jr. envisioned. The arc doesn’t bend itself. Progress is slow, excruciatingly slow, and requires robust hope to hold greed, corruption, and power in check and help bring about their great reversal.

For me, our responsibility is not just to our community and grandkids, who follow us into a life we try to make better for them. We have a weighty duty to continue the arc-bending of the many who preceded us and who lived with the hope that we would carry forward their struggle against oppression, resisting the vortex of evil. This is how we keep faith with our inheritance from them.

Many sacrificed to get us where we are today. Many were killed, lynched (some in obscene spectacle fashion), burned, mutilated, lost jobs, and endured much, trusting that we would take the torch from them, run a marathon or two with it, and then pass the torch to the next group of runners. And no time to do a pit stop for handwringing.

I tried to work and live closely with the people I served. Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative calls this “getting proximate” on issues of race and injustice. Being proximate is as much a learning encounter as a sharing experience. In so many ways, they propelled my growth as a person and taught me much about human rights as a way of life and not just a cause.

Getting proximate, I believed, included being content with a lower salary than one might expect even for a nonprofit group. It was a good reminder of the financial stress most people face daily, which often alters the direction of their lives. If someone’s car broke down, they didn’t have to call. We depended on friends and neighbors to help fix the vehicle. Getting proximate also meant not expecting a standard forty-hour workweek.

Few were the days I did not wake up in the morning, grateful and honored to be at the people’s side. And when the work was harder than usual and the brick wall almost impenetrable, I took inspiration from them.

For those with and for whom I worked, with humility and gratitude, I offer this recollection of an era that destiny let me share with them. And that’s pretty badass.

The post The Arc Doesn’t Bend Itself appeared first on The Texas Observer.

By CHRISTOPHER RUGABER and LINDSAY WHITEHURST, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal court has ruled that embattled Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook can remain in her position while she fights President Donald Trump’s efforts to fire her.

The ruling, which will almost certainly be appealed, is a blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to assert more control over the traditionally independent Fed, which sets short-term interest rates to achieve its congressionally mandated goals of stable prices and maximum employment. Congress has also sought to insulate the Fed from day-to-day politics.

Related Articles

Trump’s strike on alleged Venezuelan drug boat raises questions about his use of military power

Trump having dinner at a restaurant near the White House to promote his Washington crackdown

Trump tries to soothe Qatar after Israeli strikes but stops short of decrying another ally

Plans in the works for Korean workers detained in raid to go home while fear lingers for residents

Chicagoans change routines as immigration crackdown looms. Some carry passports and avoid stores

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb late Tuesday granted Cook’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking her firing while the dispute makes its way through the courts. Cobb ruled that Cook would likely prevail in the lawsuit she filed late last month to overturn her firing.

Trump, a Republican, said he was firing Cook on Aug. 25 over allegations raised by one of his appointees that she committed mortgage fraud related to two properties she purchased in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Atlanta in 2021, before she joined the Fed. Cook is accused of saying the properties were “primary residences,” which could have resulted in lower down payments and mortgage rates than if either was designated a second home or investment property.

The White House insisted Trump had the right to fire Cook.

“President Trump lawfully removed Lisa Cook for cause due to credible allegations of mortgage fraud from her highly sensitive position overseeing financial institutions on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said Wednesday in a statement. “This ruling will not be the last say on the matter, and the Trump Administration will continue to work to restore accountability and confidence in the Fed.”

But Cobb ruled that the allegations likely weren’t sufficient legal cause to fire Cook. Under the law governing the Fed, governors can only be removed “for cause,” which Cobb said was limited to actions taken during a governor’s time in office.

The “removal of a Federal Reserve Governor extends only to concerns about the Board member’s ability to effectively and faithfully execute their statutory duties, in light of events that have occurred while they are in office,” Cobb wrote. Cobb was appointed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

“President Trump has not stated a legally permissible cause for Cook’s removal,” the ruling added.

The decision means Cook will be able to participate in the Fed’s meeting Sept. 16-17, when it is expected to reduce its key short-term rate by a quarter-point to between 4% and 4.25%.

Federal Reserve governors aren’t like cabinet secretaries and the law doesn’t allow a president to fire them over policy disagreements or because he simply wants to replace them. Congress sought to insulate the Fed from political pressure, the court noted, by giving Fed governors long, staggered terms that make it unlikely a president can appoint a majority of the board in a single term.

“Allowing the President to unlawfully remove Governor Cook on unsubstantiated and vague allegations would endanger the stability of our financial system and undermine the rule of law,” Cook’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said in a written statement. “Governor Cook will continue to carry out her sworn duties as a Senate-confirmed Board Governor.”

The court also directed the Fed’s board of governors and its chair, Jerome Powell, “to allow Cook to continue to operate as a member of the Board for the pendency of this litigation.”

Lowell had argued in court filings that Cook was entitled to a hearing and a chance to respond to the charges before being fired but was not provided either. The court agreed that she was not provided due process by the Trump administration. Her lawsuit denied the charges but did not provide more details.

The case could become a turning point for the 112-year-old Federal Reserve. No president has sought to fire a Fed governor before. Economists prefer independent central banks because they can do unpopular things like lifting interest rates to combat inflation more easily than elected officials.

Many economists worry that if the Fed falls under the control of the White House, it will keep its key interest rate lower than justified by economic fundamentals to satisfy Trump’s demands for cheaper borrowing. That could accelerate inflation and could also push up longer-term interest rates, such as those on mortgages and car loans. Investors may demand a higher yield to own bonds to offset greater inflation in the future, lifting borrowing costs for the U.S. government, and the entire economy.

If Trump can replace Cook, he may be able to gain a 4-3 majority on the Fed’s governing board. Trump appointed two board members during his first term and has nominated a key White House economic adviser, Stephen Miran, to replace Adriana Kugler, another Fed governor who stepped down unexpectedly Aug. 1. The Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to vote Wednesday on Miran’s nomination.

Trump has said he will only appoint to the Fed people who will support lower rates.

Trump has repeatedly attacked Powell and the other members of the Fed’s interest-rate setting committee for not cutting the short-term interest rate they control more quickly. It currently stands at 4.3%, after Fed policymakers reduced it by a full percentage point late last year. Trump has said he thinks it should be as low as 1.3%, a level that no Fed official and few economists support.

Powell recently signaled that the central bank was leaning toward cutting its rate at its meeting next week.

Cook is the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor. She was a Marshall Scholar and received degrees from Oxford University and Spelman College, and prior to joining the board she taught at Michigan State University and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

AP writer Will Weissert contributed to this report.