Morgan Stanley Says China’s Reusable Rocket Progress Poses Long-Term Challenge to SpaceX 
Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger Faces Lawsuit From 12 States 
South Korea’s KOSPI Triggers Trading Curb as AI Chip Stock Selloff Deepens 
Gold Prices Fall as US-Iran Conflict, Rising Oil Prices Fuel Fed Rate Concerns 
Singapore GDP Grows 5.7% in Q2 2026 as AI-Driven Manufacturing Boosts Economy 
US Inflation Expected to Ease in June, but Fed Rate Hike Risks Persist Amid Middle East Tensions 
Stripe, Advent Offer $53 Billion Deal to Acquire PayPal: Reuters 
Apple Challenges India Antitrust Probe, Says CCI Copied Rivals’ Claims in App Store Case 
ECB's Kocher Says No Inflation Spillover Yet From Iran Conflict, Warns Risks Remain 
Genesis Minerals to Acquire Vault in A$5.6 Billion Deal After Regis Withdraws 
DOJ Grand Jury Investigates UAW President Shawn Fain Ahead of Union Election 
Trinidad Businessman Dominic Hadeed Appeals Detention Over Alleged Assassination Plot 
Trump Orders DOJ Investigation Into Exxon, Chevron Over High Gas Prices 
Trump Administration Hands Over Key Evidence in Minnesota Immigration Shooting Investigations 
Dollar Eases as Middle East Conflict, Fed Outlook and Japan Pension Policy Drive FX Markets 
The Texas Supreme Court on a 9-0 vote gave conservative activists another shot at suing the city of San Antonio for preventing Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in an airport due to its support of anti-LGBTQ causes.
The ruling overturned a lower court's dismissal of the complaint, allowing campaigners to cite enough facts to indicate the city was breaking a Texas legislation known as the "Save Chick-fil-A law," which prohibits governments from taking "adverse" actions against businesses because of their religious views.
After San Antonio's city council voted to exclude Chick-fil-A from an airport concession contract, Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill into law in 2019.
Soon after the law was approved, five conservative activists sued San Antonio, arguing that the city was breaking it because the city council's vote was based on Chick-fil-financial A's backing of Christian organizations opposed to same-sex marriage.
The plaintiffs' lawsuit, according to Justice Rebeca Aizpuru Huddle, failed to demonstrate a present breach, instead of focusing on the March 2019 vote, which predates the statute.
She stated that the vote alone does not imply that there is a "credible threat" of unfavorable action against Chick-fil-A today, allowing the city's government immunity to be waived under the legislation.
Huddle, on the other hand, believes the activists should be allowed to modify their case to include current infractions.
In a concurring judgment, Justice Jimmy Blacklock, joined by Justice John Devine, agreed that the issue should be reopened, but disputed that the 2019 vote was insufficient to demonstrate a current breach because it established "a forward-looking policy."
The court relegated the decision to the trial court.
