Good morning.

California is asking an appeals court to revive its corporate board quota law after losing at trial. Two small businesses are challenging President Donald Trump’s latest global tariff program as an unlawful tax on imports. And former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is giving his clearest indication yet that he may seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028.

California Returns to Court Over Corporate Board Quotas

A legal battle over California’s attempt to mandate female representation on corporate boards is moving back into an appeals court.

Judicial Watch filed a 90-page brief urging the California Court of Appeal to preserve a lower court ruling that permanently blocked Senate Bill 826, a 2018 law requiring publicly traded companies headquartered in California to place a minimum number of women on their boards.

The organization sued on behalf of three California taxpayers, arguing that state money could not constitutionally be used to enforce a sex-based quota.

After a 27-day trial involving 16 witnesses, 174 exhibits and more than 8,500 pages of testimony, the trial court concluded that the state had failed to satisfy the demanding constitutional standard governing sex-based classifications.

Judicial Watch argues California initially sold the law as an effort to increase women’s representation, promote gender parity and improve corporate performance. After those rationales proved insufficient in court, the organization says state officials attempted to recast the legislation as a remedy for discrimination.

The trial judge rejected that argument, finding insufficient evidence that California corporations had engaged in unlawful discrimination when selecting directors—or that the state had played any role in such discrimination.

Judicial Watch also argues that the law did not limit its benefits to women who had experienced discrimination and instead imposed a rigid numerical quota across roughly 625 corporations.

California is now asking the appeals court to overturn the trial ruling and restore the law. Judicial Watch wants the court to affirm the injunction and prevent the secretary of state from spending public money to enforce it.

The appeal could help determine how far states may go in using corporate governance mandates to pursue demographic representation.

Small Businesses Challenge Trump’s Replacement Tariffs

Two American businesses are suing the Trump administration over tariffs covering nearly all imports entering the United States from 80 countries.

The Liberty Justice Center filed the case after temporary tariffs imposed under Section 122 expired and were immediately replaced by duties issued under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The new tariffs took effect July 24 and impose rates of either 10% or 12.5% on products accounting for 99.4% of imports to the United States.

The plaintiffs are Burlap & Barrel, a New York spice retailer that works directly with small farmers, and Collective Horology, a California company that distributes watches made by independent craftsmen.

The administration says the tariffs address foreign governments’ failure to prevent imports produced through forced labor. The lawsuit does not challenge that objective. Instead, it argues that officials failed to follow the country-specific investigative and remedial requirements Congress placed inside Section 301.

According to the complaint, the American trade representative opened 60 investigations in March and imposed largely standardized tariffs across all 60 economies in July.

The plaintiffs argue officials failed to adequately identify the specific policies being challenged in each country, explain how those practices harmed American commerce or demonstrate how the selected tariffs would eliminate forced labor.

They also claim the administration designed the new tariffs to preserve the structure and revenue of earlier duties that courts had found unlawful or whose statutory authorization had expired.

The lawsuit asks the Court of International Trade to block enforcement and preserve importers’ ability to recover tariffs already paid, with interest.

Buttigieg Says He Is “More Inclined Than Not” to Run in 2028

Pete Buttigieg has moved closer to launching a second presidential campaign, saying he is now more likely than not to enter the 2028 Democratic primary.

The former transportation secretary made the admission during an interview on “The Diary of a CEO.”

Asked directly whether he planned to run, Buttigieg initially said he did not know. He said the decision would depend on what the country needs, what he could contribute and whether his candidacy would offer something meaningfully different from the rest of the field.

He then offered his clearest signal so far.

“I think I’m more inclined than not,” Buttigieg said.

Buttigieg emphasized that the political environment could change considerably before voting begins. He also discussed the personal cost of a national campaign, saying that raising twins with his husband, Chasten, has changed how he weighs another run for office.

A July Manhattan Institute survey placed him at 13%, behind Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom but slightly ahead of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. An Emerson College poll conducted later in the month showed Buttigieg leading the prospective field with 19%.

The conflicting results demonstrate how unsettled the contest remains, but both surveys place Buttigieg among the leading Democratic possibilities.

He preserved the option of a presidential bid by declining to run for Michigan governor or the state’s open Senate seat in 2026.