Tejano music superstar Selena Quintanilla has been gone for 30 years, but the late singer’s family issharing unseen footage of her life in a new documentary, which had its Texas debut at Austin’s Paramount Theater at this year’s South by Southwest festival.

Selena y Los Dinos is the first feature-length documentary film produced about the late singer and her family band. Directed by Mexican-American filmmaker Isabel Castro, the movie offers a tender portrait of the lives, love, and loss of the Quintanilla family. 

The film follows the family’s tribulations using a tapestry of decades-old intimate camcorder footage and recent interviews woven together. Some salient scenes include: the primary-school aged Quintanilla children rehearsing and making faces at the camera and Selena laughing alongside guitarist Chris Pérez not long before the two became a couple, stitched alongside a recent interview including his telling of their first “I love yous” exchanged in Laredo.

Archival footage brings viewers to Selena’s humble beginnings, from the foreclosure on the family’s home and restaurant in Lake Jackson after the decline of the town’s economy to a brief flash of a local social services office where the Quintanillas waited to file papers for food stamps.

In an interview shot inside a van chock-full of costumes, Selena giggles as she answers the question: “What’s your final goal?” Her answer was ready: “Mercedes Benz. I don’t care if I have to live in it!” she exclaimed, unaware of the fame and fortune that awaited her.

Castro’s depiction of Selena and the band reveals a goofy, down-to-earth family, even after they struck success. After signing a record deal, the two Quintanilla sisters filmed a tour of their California hotel room: “I am in Long Beach, California, lifestyle of the rich and famous!” Selena yelled, her arms splayed out as she posed in front of the building.

Photos and interviews carefully stitched together also explore the nuances of Tejano identity—the struggle of straddling two identities and two cultures—and the beauty, banality, and occasional blunders of being (or not being) bilingual. 

Abraham Quintanilla, Selena’s father, recalls stories of his youth growing up during an era of segregation and anti-Latino sentiment. Although Spanish was his first language, he struggled to speak it fluently decades later when the band was breaking into the Mexican music market in the ’90s. Growing up for part of their childhood in Lake Jackson, the small petrochemical town south of Houston, the children did not feel in touch with their roots, Selena’s brother explained in the film (though that changed when they moved to Corpus Christi).

In one early scene, a Spanish-speaking journalist interviews a teenage Selena, asking about how the band had made their costumes—white denim jumpsuits with bursts of multicolored splatter paint—to which she replied in English: “wet paint!” 

“And for the people listening in Mexico?” he asked her in Spanish, encouraging her to explain the provenance of the costumes in the language his audience spoke. “Los paint-amos,” she replied, which was immediately met with the journalist’s laughter.

Later in the film, Castro includes photographs of Selena’s Spanish studying materials, and archival media footage shows the late singer as a young adult confidently expressing herself in both languages in TV interviews.

As for the woman who murdered Selena in 1995, the film essentially ignores her altogether. The film’s exploration of the loss of Selena’s life focused on the family’s grief and the late singer’s legacy. Even 30 years after her death, Selena’s influence remains powerful, in Corpus Christi and far beyond.

As a non-Hispanic Texan with a deep appreciation of Tejano and Latin American music, raised far from South Texas in a Collin County suburb, what struck me most about this movie was the audience’s journey alongside the Quintanilla family. Throughout the film, attendees put their hearts on display. They cheered. They erupted in laughter. Some sobbed, as if Selena were, too, part of their own family. Any mention in the film of Selena breaking down doors for the Latino community, breaking the glass ceiling for women, or breaking into a bilingual music market just before her death was met with thunderous applause and shouts of joy.

As theater workers ushered us out of the Paramount Theater, fans paused for a moment to pose for photos or pay their respects to Selena’s now elderly father, who sat in a wheelchair by the exit. I’d joined a friend of mine and her mother at the screening. The mom, a proud Tejana who raised her kids listening to Selena, was among those who stopped to greet Abraham.

She leaned in. “Thank you for sharing your daughter with us.”

The post The Love and Loss of the Quintanillas appeared first on The Texas Observer.

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday backed a multibillion-dollar oil railroad expansion in Utah, endorsing a limited interpretation of a key environmental law.

Related Articles

Ford recalls more than a million vehicles for software glitch that makes rearview camera unreliable

Stocks climb after a court blocks many of Trump’s tariffs, as Nvidia leads tech stocks higher again

Judge considers whether Florida’s attorney general should be held in contempt over immigration law

Hit by Trump trade wars, U.S. economy falls 0.2% in first quarter, an upgrade from initial estimate

Harvard holds commencement while facing pressure from Trump administration

The 8-0 decision comes after an appeal to the high court from backers of the project, which is aimed at quadrupling oil production in the remote area of sandstone and sagebrush. Supporters said restricting the scope of environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act would speed development.

The case centers on the Uinta Basin Railway, a proposed 88-mile (142-kilometer) expansion that would connect oil and gas producers to the broader rail network and allow them to access larger markets.

The justices reversed a lower court decision and restored a critical approval from federal regulators on the Surface Transportation Board. The project could still face additional legal and regulatory hurdles.

Environmental groups and a Colorado county had argued that regulators must consider a broad range of potential impacts when they consider new development, including the potential impact of producing and refining so much more oil.

The justices, though, found that regulators were right to consider the direct effects of the project, rather than the wider upstream and downstream impact. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that courts should defer to regulators on “where to draw the line” on what factors to take into account. Four other conservative justices joined his opinion.

The court’s conservative majority court has taken steps to curtail the power of federal regulators in other cases, including striking down the decades-old Chevron doctrine that made it easier for the federal government to set a wide range of regulations.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed with the outcome, but with a different legal reasoning. She said federal regulators do not have the authority to take into account any harms caused by the oil that might eventually be carried on the railway. She was joined by her two liberal colleagues.

Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the case after facing calls to step aside over ties to Philip Anschutz, a Colorado billionaire whose ownership of oil wells in the area means he could benefit if the project goes through. Gorsuch, as a lawyer in private practice, had represented Anschutz.

By PAUL WISEMAN, Associated Press Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal court in New York handed President Donald Trump a big setback Wednesday, blocking his audacious plan to impose massive taxes on imports from almost every country in the world.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare a national emergency and justify the sweeping tariffs.

The tariffs overturned decades of U.S. trade policy, disrupted global commerce, rattled financial markets and raised the risk of higher prices and recession in the United States and around the world.

The U.S. Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade. Its decisions can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges to Trump’ tariffs are widely expected to end up.

Which tariffs did the court block?

The court’s decision blocks the tariffs Trump slapped last month on almost all U.S. trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada.

On April 2, Trump imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to U.S. exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States’ longstanding trade deficits “a national emergency.”

In February, he’d invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the U.S. border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Trump has made the most of it.

The tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling Wednesday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 U.S. states.

The ruling does leave in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos. But those levies were invoked under a different law that required a Commerce Department investigation and could not be imposed at the president’s own discretion.

Why did the court rule against the president?

The administration had argued that courts had approved then-President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that arose when the United States suddenly devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the U.S. currency to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEPPA.

The court disagreed, deciding that Trump’s sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America’s trade deficits hardly amount of a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad.

So where does this leave Trump’s trade agenda?

Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says the court’s decision “throws the president’s trade policy into turmoil.”

Related Articles

$14 billion in clean energy projects have been canceled in the US this year, analysis says

Trump’s envoy has ‘good feelings’ about Gaza ceasefire talks. Here’s where things stand

Trump commutes federal life sentence of founding Gangster Disciples kingpin Larry Hoover

Trump administration cancels $766 million Moderna contract to fight pandemic flu

Former Connecticut governor, who resigned amid corruption scandal, pardoned by Trump

“Partners negotiating hard during the 90-day day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the U.S. until there is more legal clarity,” she said.

Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal.

The trade court noted that Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits.

For now, the trade court’s ruling “destroys the Trump administration’s rationale for using federal emergency powers to impose tariffs, which oversteps congressional authority and contravenes any notion of due process,” said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. “The ruling makes it clear that the broad tariffs imposed unilaterally by Trump represent an overreach of executive power.”

AP Writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this story.

By STAN CHOE Associated Press Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — Stocks worldwide are rising on Thursday after a U.S. court blocked many of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, though the gains got less strong as trading progressed from Asia to New York.

The S&P 500 was 0.7% higher in early trading, and it pulled within 3.5% of its all-time high set earlier this year. It had dropped roughly 20% below the mark last month, when fears were at their worst about whether Trump’s trade war would drive the economy into a recession.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 60 points, or 0.1%, as of 9:35 a.m. Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite was 1.3% higher.

The gains were even bigger in Asia, where markets had the first chance to react to the ruling issued late on Wednesday by the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York. It said that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act that Trump cited for ordering massive increases in taxes on imports worldwide does not authorize the use of tariffs.

The White House immediately appealed, and the long-term outcome of legal disputes over tariffs remains uncertain. The court’s ruling also affects only some of Trump’s tariffs, not those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, which were invoked under a different law.

Related Articles

Judge considers whether Florida’s attorney general should be held in contempt over immigration law

Hit by Trump trade wars, U.S. economy falls 0.2% in first quarter, an upgrade from initial estimate

Harvard holds commencement while facing pressure from Trump administration

More Americans file for jobless aid but layoffs remain low despite economic uncertainty over tariffs

CEO pay rose nearly 10% in 2024 as stock prices and profits soared

Trump “is still able to impose significant and wide-ranging tariffs over the longer-term through other means,” according to Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi, chief investment officer of global equities at UBS Global Wealth Management.

That uncertainty helped dampen the excitement in financial markets as trading headed through Europe into the United States, where the gains were more modest. The U.S. court’s move was nevertheless seen as a positive overall for financial markets.

“The bar is raised for President Trump to resurrect his tariffs,” said Brian Jacobsen, chief economist at Annex Wealth Management.

“Markets are pricing that this is a better type of uncertainty than what we’ve had since Liberation Day,” which is when Trump announced his worldwide set of sweeping tariffs.

On Wall Street, tech stocks led the way after Nvidia once again topped analysts’ expectations for profit and revenue in the latest quarter.

The chip company has grown into one of the U.S. stock market’s largest and most influential stocks because of the frenzy around artificial-intelligence technology, and its 5.9% rise was the strongest force by far moving the S&P 500 upward.

C3ai, an AI application software company, jumped 25.6% after it reported stronger profit than analysts expected for its latest quarter, while also saying the U.S. Air Force increased the top end of the range for how much its contract could be worth by $350 million to $450 million. Its total revenue grew to $108.7 million last quarter.

E.l.f. Beauty was another big winner and rose 31.1% after the cosmetics company delivered a stronger profit for the latest quarter than analysts expected. It also said it agreed to buy Hailey Bieber’s Rhode skincare brand in a $1 billion deal. Rhode had $212 million in net sales in the 12 months through March.

Bieber, a model and the wife of singer Justin Bieber, will be Rhode’s chief creative officer and head of innovation and also a strategic advisor to the combined companies.

They helped offset a drop for Best Buy, which fell even 6.3% though it reported a stronger profit than expected. Its revenue fell short of analysts’ forecasts.

The electronics retailer also cut its forecasted ranges for revenue and profit over the full year on the assumption that “tariffs stay at the current levels for the rest of the year, and there is no material change in consumer behavior from the trends we have seen in recent quarters,” Chief Financial Officer Matt Bilunas said.

In the bond market, Treasury yields were holding relatively steady following some mixed reports on the economy. One said that the U.S. economy likely shrunk by less in the first three months of the year than earlier estimated. Another said slightly more U.S. workers applied for unemployment benefits last week than economists expected.

The yield on the 10-year Treasury eased to 4.45% from 4.47% late Wednesday. The two-year Treasury yield, which moves more closely with expectations for where the Federal Reserve will take overnight interest rates, was holding at 3.96%, where it was late Wednesday.

In stock markets abroad, Japan’s Nikkei 225 jumped 1.9% to help lead Asian markets higher. In South Korea, which like Japan relies heavily on exports to the United States, the Kospi also rallied 1.9%. Its market also got a boost from the Bank of Korea, which cut its key interest rate to ease pressure on the economy.

The moves in Europe were more muted. France’s CAC 40 rose 0.3%, and Germany’s DAX was close to flat.

AP Business Writers Matt Ott and Elaine Kurtenbach contributed.