BALTIMORE (AP) — Crews were working Thursday morning to contain and clean up a 2,000-gallon diesel fuel spill in Baltimore’s harbor, according to state and city officials.

Initially, Johns Hopkins Hospital reported a contained 200-gallon diesel fuel spill at its East Baltimore facility on Wednesday morning, but a few hours later the fire department responded to a 911 call for a spill at a marina in Harbor East more than a mile away, officials said. The state, city and U.S. Coast Guard began coordinating a response to the spill. In an update around 7 p.m., Hopkins reported that 2,000 gallons had spilled, officials said.

Related Articles

Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in religious-rights case over unemployment taxes

Supreme Court blocks Mexico’s $10B lawsuit alleging US gunmakers have fueled cartel violence

Supreme Court makes it easier to claim ‘reverse discrimination’ in employment, in a case from Ohio

Wall Street is on hold as the countdown ticks toward Friday’s jobs report

Trump banned citizens of 12 countries from entering the U.S. Here’s what to know.

More than 100 people worked through the night to make sure that the situation was under control and contained, Gov. Wes Moore said at a news conference. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott stressed that there’s no evidence to suggest that the spill was affecting drinking water in the area.

A boom was deployed on the water quickly and later crews began to skim the heating oil product off the water, Fire Chief James Wallace said. They’ve begun to flush the storm drain system to push the product to the harbor where they have skimmers to capture it, he said. That effort will continue through the majority of the day on Thursday. Officials explained that the water appears red due to dye in the fuel.

“Very speedy response, solid coordination, partnership with our state and federal resources have put us into the position right now,” Wallace said. “That’s what’s going to drive the remainder of the day and actually the coming days.”

Officials expect the containment and cleanup efforts will disrupt traffic well into the day Thursday, and they encouraged people to avoid the area.

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court decided Thursday that a Catholic charity doesn’t have to pay Wisconsin unemployment taxes, one of a set of religious-rights cases the justices are considering this term.

Related Articles

Crews clean up 2,000-gallon fuel spill in Baltimore’s harbor

Supreme Court blocks Mexico’s $10B lawsuit alleging US gunmakers have fueled cartel violence

Supreme Court makes it easier to claim ‘reverse discrimination’ in employment, in a case from Ohio

Wall Street is on hold as the countdown ticks toward Friday’s jobs report

Trump banned citizens of 12 countries from entering the U.S. Here’s what to know.

The unanimous ruling comes in a case filed by the Catholic Charities Bureau, which says the state violated the First Amendment’s religious freedom guarantee when it required the organization to pay the tax while exempting other faith groups.

Wisconsin argues the organization has paid the tax for over 50 years and doesn’t qualify for an exemption because its day-to-day work doesn’t involve religious teachings. Much of the groups’ funding is from public money, and neither employees nor people receiving services have to belong to any faith, according to court papers.

Catholic Charities, though, says it qualifies because its disability services are motivated by religious beliefs and the state shouldn’t be making determinations about what work qualifies as religious. It appealed to the Supreme Court after Wisconsin’s highest court ruled against it. President Donald Trump’s administration weighed in on behalf of Catholic Charites.

Wisconsin has said that a decision in favor of the charity could open the door to big employers like religiously affiliated hospitals pulling out of the state unemployment system as well.

The conservative-majority court has issued a string of decisions siding with churches and religious plaintiffs in recent years. This term, though, a plan to establish a publicly funded Catholic charter school lost after when the justices deadlocked after Amy Coney Barrett recused herself.

The nine-member court is also considering a case over religious objections to books read in public schools. In those arguments, the majority appeared sympathetic to the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters.

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S. alleging the companies’ business practices have fueled tremendous cartel violence and bloodshed.

The unanimous ruling tossed out the case under U.S. laws that largely shield gunmakers from liability when their firearms are used in crime.

Big-name manufacturers like Smith & Wesson had appealed to the justices after a lower court let the suit go forward under an exception for situations in which the companies themselves are accused of violating the law.

But the justices found that Mexico hadn’t made a plausible argument that the companies had knowingly allowed guns to be trafficked into the country. “It does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court’s opinion.

Mexico had asked the justices to let the case play out, saying it was still in its early stages.

The case began in 2021, when the Mexican government filed a blockbuster suit against some of the biggest gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock.

Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country’s powerful drug cartels every year.

The Mexican government says at least 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market.

The companies reject Mexico’s allegations, arguing the country’s lawsuit comes nowhere close to showing they’re responsible for a relatively few people using their products to commit violence.

Related Articles

Crews clean up 2,000-gallon fuel spill in Baltimore’s harbor

Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in religious-rights case over unemployment taxes

Supreme Court makes it easier to claim ‘reverse discrimination’ in employment, in a case from Ohio

Wall Street is on hold as the countdown ticks toward Friday’s jobs report

Trump banned citizens of 12 countries from entering the U.S. Here’s what to know.

A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit under a 2005 law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits, but an appeals court revived it. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly breaking laws in their business practices.

That exception has come up in other cases, including in lawsuits stemming from mass shootings.

Families of victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, for example, argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gunmaker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed.

The families eventually secured a landmark $73 million settlement with Remington, the maker of the rifle.

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn’t get a job and then was demoted because she is straight.

Related Articles

The number of Americans filing for jobless benefits last week rises to highest level in eight months

Pampers maker Procter & Gamble to cut up to 7,000 jobs under tariff, consumer uncertainty pressure

Today in History: June 5, Robert F. Kennedy assassinated

Trump announces travel ban and restrictions on 19 countries set to go into effect Monday

Jury deliberations near in Weinstein sex crimes retrial

The justices’ decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law.

The court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years.

Ames contends she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames.

The 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing “background circumstances” that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.

The appeals court noted that Ames didn’t provide any such circumstances.