KTBB News, Weather, Talk

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday erased limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president, striking down a federal election law that is more than 50 years old.

Prodded by a Republican-led lawsuit that includes Vice President JD Vance, the court’s conservative justices were again in the majority of the latest decision that upended congressionally enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections. The court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections.

The limits on party spending stem from a desire to prevent large donors from skirting caps on individual contributions to a candidate by directing unlimited sums to the party, with the understanding that the money will be spent on behalf of the candidate.

The Supreme Court had previously upheld the limits, in 2001.

The Republican committees for House and Senate candidates filed the lawsuit in Ohio in 2022, joined by Vance, then a senator from Ohio, and then-Rep. Steve Chabot.

After President Donald Trump took office for his second term, the Federal Election Commission dropped its defense of the law and joined with Republicans in urging that it be overturned.

Democrats had called on the court to uphold the law, even though there is wide agreement that the spending limits have hurt political parties in an era of unlimited spending by other organizations.

Last year, the coordinated party spending for Senate races ranged from $127,200 in several states with small populations to nearly $4 million in California, the most populous state. For House races, the limits were $127,200 in states with only one representative and $63,600 everywhere else.

Entrenched divisions between liberal and conservative justices over campaign finance restrictions were on display when the court heard arguments in December.

“Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a dissenter in Citizens United and the court’s other campaign money cases.

By contrast, Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the Citizens United majority, described the decision as “much maligned, I think unfairly maligned.” The effect of the decision was to ”level the playing field,” Alito said, by expanding the right to spend freely that had previously belonged only to media companies.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The justices relied on a long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, and more recent federal laws in ruling that anyone born in the country, with very limited exceptions, is a citizen.

The Republican president’s restrictions had been blocked by several lower courts and had not taken effect anywhere in the U.S.

During arguments in April, both conservative and liberal justices questioned the order’s legality in a momentous case that was magnified by Trump’s unprecedented attendance in the courtroom.

The case framed another test of Trump’s assertions of executive power that defy long-standing precedent for a court with a conservative majority and a robust view of presidential power that has largely ruled in his favor. In the notable exceptions when the court has not, Trump has responded with starkly personal criticisms of the justices.

The justices ruled on Trump’s appeal of a lower-court ruling from New Hampshire that struck down the citizenship restrictions.

The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term, is part of his administration’s broad immigration crackdown.

Birthright citizenship was the first Trump immigration-related policy to reach the court for a final ruling. The justices previously struck down global tariffs Trump had imposed under an emergency powers law that had never been used that way.

Trump reacted furiously to the late February tariffs decision, saying he was ashamed of the justices who ruled against him and calling them unpatriotic.

He also seemed to recognize the court was likely to rule against him on birthright citizenship, too, using his Truth Social platform to criticize “dumb judges and justices” and wealthy pregnant women from China and elsewhere who come to the U.S. to give birth so their newborns will have American citizenship.

Trump’s order would have upended widely held views that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born in the U.S., excluding only the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

The amendment was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship, though the Citizenship Clause is written more broadly. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” it reads.

In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down Trump’s executive order as illegal. The decisions have invoked the high court’s 1898 ruling in Wong Kim Ark, which held that the U.S.-born child of Chinese nationals was a citizen.

The Trump administration argued that the common view of citizenship is wrong, asserting that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.

More than one-quarter of a million babies born in the U.S. each year would have been affected by the executive order, according to research by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute.

While Trump has largely focused on illegal immigration in his rhetoric and actions, the birthright citizenship restrictions also would have applied to people who are legally in the United States, including students and applicants for green cards, or permanent resident status.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school athletic teams, in another setback for transgender people.

The court’s conservative majority, which has repeatedly ruled against transgender Americans in the past year, ruled that state bans in Idaho and West Virginia don’t violate the Constitution or the federal law known as Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education.

More than two dozen other Republican-led states have adopted bans on female transgender athletes, and the decision seems certain to extend to them as well.

Left unresolved by the outcome are lawsuits challenging state laws and regulations in Connecticut, California and elsewhere that permit transgender athletes to compete consistent with their gender identity.

Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 16-year-old high school sophomore in Bridgeport, West Virginia, has been taking puberty-blocking medication, has publicly identified as a girl since age 8 and has been issued a West Virginia birth certificate recognizing her as female. She is the only transgender person who has sought to compete in girls sports in West Virginia.

Pepper-Jackson has progressed from a back-of-the-pack cross-country runner in middle school to statewide champion in the shot put. She beat the second-place finisher by two feet in last month’s West Virginia championship meet.

In the Idaho case, Lindsay Hecox sued over the state’s first-in-the-nation ban for the chance to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University in Idaho. She didn’t make either squad because “she was too slow,” her lawyer, Kathleen Hartnett, told the court during arguments in January, but she competed in club-level soccer and running.

Prominent women in sports have weighed in on both sides. Tennis champion Martina Navratilova, swimmers Summer Sanders and Donna de Varona and beach volleyball player Kerri Walsh Jennings are supporting the state bans. Soccer stars Megan Rapinoe and Becky Sauerbrunn and basketball players Sue Bird and Breanna Stewart back the transgender athletes.

In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled LGBTQ people are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace, finding that “sex plays an unmistakable role” in employers’ decisions to punish transgender people for traits and behavior they otherwise tolerate.

But last year, the six conservative justices on the nine-member court declined to apply the same sort of analysis when they upheld state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

The states supporting the prohibitions on transgender athletes argued there is no reason to extend the ruling barring workplace discrimination to Title IX.

Idaho’s law, state Solicitor General Alan Hurst said, is “necessary for fair competition because, where sports are concerned, men and women are obviously not the same.”

Lawyers for Pepper-Jackson argued that such distinctions generally make sense but that their client has none of those advantages because of the unique circumstances of her early transition. In Hecox’s case, her lawyers wanted the court to dismiss the case because she had forsworn trying to play on women’s teams.

NCAA president Charlie Baker told Congress in 2024 that he was aware of only 10 transgender athletes out of more than half a million students on college teams. But despite the small numbers, the issue has taken on outsize importance.

Baker’s NCAA and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committees banned transgender women from women’s sports after President Donald Trump, a Republican, signed an executive order aimed at barring their participation.

The public generally is supportive of the limits. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in October 2025 found that about 6 in 10 U.S. adults “strongly” or “somewhat” favored requiring transgender children and teenagers to compete only on sports teams that match the sex they were assigned at birth, not the gender they identify with, while about 2 in 10 were “strongly” or “somewhat” opposed and about one-quarter did not have an opinion.

About 2.1 million adults, or 0.8%, and 724,000 people ages 13 to 17, or 3.3%, identify as transgender in the U.S., according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Students pursuing graduate degrees in nursing, physical therapy and several other fields will be eligible to take out higher federal student loan amounts — at least for now — after a federal judge blocked part of a Trump administration rule that held them to lower limits.

The U.S. Education Department issued a revised rule on Monday designed to follow the judge’s order from last week, officials told The Associated Press. Agency officials called it a temporary change while they fight in court to keep the original rule, which defined medicine, law and other fields as “professional programs” but excluded fields such as nursing.

The department disagrees with the judge’s order but will comply, even as officials plan to prevail in the case over which degrees are defined as “professional,” Undersecretary Nicholas Kent said in a statement. “We will continue to make the case that the definition is both lawful and appropriate,” he said.

The change represents a short-term win for groups that sued to stop the rule. Eight groups challenged the department’s definition in court, representing nurse practitioners, therapists, speech language pathologists and more.

But in strictly applying the judge’s order, the department is now striking some degrees from the list of professional programs, meaning those students will face lower loan limits. Theology studies programs are among the biggest to shift from professional to non-professional degrees in the shuffle, subjecting theology students to a lower student loan limit. The master of divinity degree — a common degree for pastors and ministers — remains on the professional list, with a more generous student loan limit.

The new rule, which takes effect Wednesday, comes from a student loan overhaul passed in President Donald Trump’s tax bill last year. Programs designated as professional degrees face federal loan caps of $200,000, while other graduate programs are capped at $100,000.

Previously, graduate students had been able to take out federal loans up to the full cost of their degree. Trump officials pushed for new loan caps to rein in student debt and lower tuition prices that they said had grown out of control.

The groups that brought the lawsuit said the rule would require students to forgo their studies or take out riskier private loans. Although many graduate nursing degrees fall within the lower loan limits, some can cost more than $100,000, including in high-demand fields like nurse anesthesia.

In a notification to universities on Monday, the Education Department said it’s confident the Trump administration’s initial rule will ultimately be upheld in court. The amended rule is expected to remain in effect during the judge’s preliminary stay, but the department warned that it “may change as litigation in the case proceeds.”

The original rule included about a dozen programs that were deemed professional, which Trump officials had said was not a judgment on their importance but part of a technical definition dating to the 1960s. Along with law and medicine, that list also included theology, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, clinical psychology and more.

The temporary rule expands that list to 29 specific degree programs, including master of science in nursing, doctor of nursing practice, and doctor of nurse anesthesia practice. Others newly added to the professional list include degrees for physical therapy, athletic training, speech-language pathology, physician associates and anesthesiologist assistants.

The department’s communication listed about 25 programs that are now considered non-professional degrees. Along with theology, that list now includes applied psychology, pharmaceutical sciences and others. (The doctor of pharmacy degree remains professional.)

Last week’s court ruling blocked parts of the Education Department’s definition that were added in a federal rulemaking process. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington called it a “misguided” interpretation that strayed from a longstanding definition created by Congress.

The department’s definition laid out several criteria used to weigh if degrees count as professional programs. It said those degrees generally take six years to complete and require licenses to begin practicing, among other requirements.

It also said professional degrees cannot lead to employment that must be “be supervised by another professional” with “more education, training, and qualifications.”

A separate lawsuit filed by a coalition of Democratic-led states challenging the loan caps is still pending.

WASHINGTON (AP) — When U.S. health officials meet next month to reconsider a list of controversial peptide drugs, they will hear from a new set of voices: doctors and pharmacists with deep financial ties to the burgeoning industry of unproven chemicals.

The Food and Drug Administration on Monday released its list of participants for an upcoming meeting to reconsider the safety and effectiveness of several popular peptide injections, including some that have been praised by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Previous FDA panels on the topic have been composed of academics and researchers. The agency’s new group mainly includes health professionals who prescribe, produce or promote peptides, which have become a wellness trend among athletes, influencers and celebrities.

The two-day meeting is the latest example of how Kennedy and his deputies are trying to reshape U.S. health policy in the mold of the Make America Healthy Again movement. Some of the biggest supporters of the movement sell peptide formulas, though many pharmaceutical industry experts consider them illegal, unapproved drugs.

The substances are sold online and promoted by wellness clinics as a means to build muscle, heal injuries and look younger, though there’s little evidence behind those claims. Peptide sellers often skirt U.S. regulations by labeling their products as “for research use only,” since the FDA doesn’t regulate research chemicals.

FDA has raised safety concerns about peptides

Many of the injectable peptides sold in the U.S. are produced by compounding pharmacies, which mix custom medications that aren’t available from traditional drug manufacturers.

For several years, the FDA has warned Americans about the risks of injecting chemicals with names like BPC-157 and TB-500, which have not been extensively studied in humans. Both drugs are considered doping substances by international sports authorities. They are among seven peptides set for review in July.

Previous versions of the FDA’s panel on drug compounding — the group that will meet next month — have voted against a string of peptide ingredients brought forward by compounding pharmacies, declaring all of them too risky to be offered to patients. Those panels were mostly composed of experts from universities including Duke, Harvard and Johns Hopkins.

New FDA panel includes peptide proponents

The FDA’s new group includes more than a half-dozen panelists who run clinics, online businesses or pharmacies specializing in peptides, which are often given alongside other unapproved therapies, including vitamin infusions.

For example, panel member Dr. Haleem Mohammed runs clinics in Florida that sell injections of peptides, vitamins, testosterone and weight loss medications. The business is part of a national chain of clinics dubbed Gameday Men’s Health. The company’s website states, “compounded medications offered through our services are not FDA-approved, and the FDA does not verify their safety.”

Another panelist, Dr. Gabriel Alizaidy, charges $500 for “peptide and hormone” consultations, including advice on “where to safely get each peptide or compound.” Alizaidy promotes BPC-157, GHK-Cu and other peptides to thousands of followers through his accounts on Instagram and TikTok.

His website contains the disclaimer that each consultation “is educational in nature and does not constitute medical care, diagnosis, or treatment.”

Another member is Bobby Harshbarger, a Tennessee state senator who has multiple connections to the industry. Harshbarger is a pharmacist at his family’s business, Premiere Pharmacy, which sells compounded medications for weight loss, longevity, pain and other conditions.

His mother, Rep. Diana Harshbarger, is also a pharmacist and a Republican member of U.S. Congress from Tennessee. Last year she sent a letter to Kennedy calling on him to relax FDA restrictions on a half-dozen peptides.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly praised Harshbarger’s support of his “Make America Great Again” agenda. Last year, the president pardoned her husband, Robert Harshbarger Jr., who pleaded guilty more than a decade ago to substituting an unapproved drug from China for one used by patients on kidney dialysis. He was stripped of his pharmacy license and sentenced to four years in prison, which he served.

Mohammed and Alizaidy did not immediately respond to messages from The Associated Press Monday afternoon. A spokesperson for Harshbarger could not immediately provide comment when reached by phone.

Kennedy and his allies previously criticized government panels

The FDA has more than 30 panels of experts who advise the agency on various drugs, vaccines, food ingredients and other products.

Advisory meetings are subject to strict government transparency rules in terms of panel composition and financial disclosures. Experts who have a financial stake in a company or industry are permitted to serve on the panels, but the relationship must be disclosed and regulators are supposed to explain why the person’s expertise outweighs their potential conflict of interest.

Kennedy and his allies have been highly critical of federal expert panels, often alleging that they are riven with conflicts of interest, despite federal data showing otherwise.

Last year, Kennedy fired the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s entire 17-member vaccine panel and replaced it with a group that includes several anti-vaccine voices. A federal judge later said that action likely violated federal rules.

Kennedy told podcast host Joe Rogan earlier this year that he is “a big fan of peptides,” and described using them to recover from injuries.

Former FDA Commissioner Marty Makary — who resigned in May — was also highly critical of FDA advisory panels, complaining that they were expensive, time-consuming and subject to too many financial conflicts.

The number of such meetings plummeted during Makary’s tenure. Instead, the FDA held a number of ad hoc meetings with handpicked experts on topics favored by Kennedy, including the risks of talc powder and antidepressants.

McALLEN (AP) — A nun was released from immigration custody after she was arrested walking to Mass in her habit in South Texas.

Sister Leticia Ugboaja was walking to Our Lady of Sorrows Church in McAllen, Texas, just a few miles from the U.S.-Mexico border on Sunday when she was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

The Department of Homeland Security and ICE have not responded to a request for comment since Sunday.

Parish officials posted a message on social media shortly after the arrest that gained traction in the news and led to Congress members including U.S. Rep. Monica de la Cruz intervening on Ugboaja’s behalf.

The nun is part of the Daughters of Mary Mother of Mercy and volunteered as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion at Our Lady of Sorrows Church, according to Brenda Riojas, a spokesperson for the Diocese of Brownsville.

Ugboaja is also a registered nurse at South Texas Health System and worked previously for 10 years as a certified nursing assistant at DHR Health in Edinburg, Riojas confirmed.

Members of congress representing south Texas intervened with federal officials. As of Monday, Ugboaja was back in her home.

“We are grateful for the quick response of local representatives who reached out to the Department of Homeland Security to get her released from custody,” Riojas added in her statement.

President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown — including at sensitive sites such as houses of worship — has prompted faith leaders to adjust their response to church members who have become too afraid to attend. Some have encouraged online attendance, while others have offered help doing errands such as grocery shopping for people too fearful to leave their homes.

DALLAS (AP) — Drop thousands of Argentina fans into Texas for the World Cup and the debate is inevitable. It’s not about who has the best team or whether Lionel Messi is the best player at the tournament. It’s about who produces the best, most succulent steaks, and how to prepare the meat.

That’s right: There’s a beef about beef between two of the top cattle-raising areas of the world, where steak is deeply ingrained in diet and culture. Texas ranks No. 1 in the United States in beef production and the U.S. is second only to Brazil globally, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Argentina ranks sixth.

It’s a high-steaks question: Who does do it best?

The case for Argentine beef

“Argentine beef is simply unbeatable. The savory texture, the style of the cut — there is no competing with it,” said Carlos Eduardo Barahona, 64, an Argentine chef who’s lived in Texas since 1998.

From the cheapest cuts to the most expensive, Argentina is tops, asserts Barahona, who has worked in restaurants across Argentina, Uruguay, and Texas.

“You can make an (Argentine) asado with the cheapest cut in our country and you will enjoy it. Here, you can use the best meat, like tenderloin, and depending on its source, it can turn out tough, inedible or tender. But our beef has a completely different flavor profile,” Barahona said.

Argentine beef cattle is mostly grass-fed on open pastures, taking longer to reach the point it is ready for market. The result is leaner meat with intense earthy flavors.
The case for Texan beef

Predominantly grain-fed beef in Texas and the U.S. will have more marbling — the streaks of intramuscular fat that act as internal baster and make the meat juicy and tender — and a sweeter flavor.

“There’s no better beef than U.S. beef, particularly Texas beef,” said Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller.

But Argentine beef is very good too, Miller said. Thanks to Texas.

Miller said his agency opened a marketing office more than a decade ago to connect Texas’ cattle raisers with ranchers in South America, notably in Argentina.

“I don’t want to disparage our friends in Argentina, but we have helped them improve,” he said.

“Their genetics were lacking. We do have them up to pretty high quality. We sold them a lot of semen, embryos, and breeding stock,” Miller added.

Miller congratulated Argentine farmers on improving the quality of their cows.

“Their herds have American genetics in them, so they should be good,” Miller said.
The verdict is in the eye of the beefholder

Argentine fan Gonzalo Herrera browsed packaged meat at a Walmart in Arlington, Texas, after watching Messi score two goals in a win over Austria. He shrugged at the whose-beef-is-better debate.

“Honestly, I don’t see a massive difference,” Herrera said as he packed four T-bone steaks into his shopping cart.

“The key is knowing exactly which cuts to buy and finding the equivalent of what we eat in Argentina,” he said, shaking his head at the $45 price.

“Prices are higher here,” Herrera said.

The beef banter just as easily boils down to recipes and preferences in style and thickness of cuts. It’s a matter of taste, quite literally, when it comes to seasoning, searing, smoking, butter, pepper, sauces and so forth.

At Corrientes 348 Argentinian Steakhouse in Dallas, steaks are prepared with just salt and mesquite charcoal, said assistant manager Emmanuel Tobon.

“There’s a big difference. Texans use a lot of pepper, they use butter, they use a little barbecue (sauce),” Tobon said. “(Argentines) like to bring all the flavor of the steak by only using salt.”

Argentina still has at least one more match to play in Dallas, on Saturday. Fans of the Albiceleste have been packing the restaurant, seeking a quick taste of home during the World Cup.

“They have been enjoying the Texas culture,” Tobon said. “(But) it has been a great pleasure to have all of them, to make them feel like home.”

Argentines are fiercely proud of their steak culture, recipes that have been passed down for generations, and the “sacred” work of the grill master at large family meals, he said.

For Fernando Garcia Morillo, an Argentine from Buenos Aires who now lives near Miami, the meat from both countries is great. But he longs for the traditions of home whenever he orders steak in the U.S.

“I order just salt, no pepper, just plain,” Morillo said. “Sometimes they use a lot of sauce.”

He dismissed any notion of a beef between the U.S and Argentina.

“Maybe there’s a rivalry as usual against Brazil, our neighbor,” he said. “I love the U.S. meat.”

___

Vertuno reported from Austin, Texas.

___

See more of AP’s World Cup coverage here

NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump on Saturday said he is nominating Lance Schroyer, a former Oklahoma state trooper, as the next director of Immigration and Customs and Enforcement.

Trump said on his Truth Social platform that his new pick for the immigration enforcement agency is a former U.S. Marine and a “PATRIOT with real operational experience.” He called Schroyer a “proven leader with DECADES of experience locking up the worst of the worst.”

Schroyer hails from the same home state as the new Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, a former congressman. Earlier this month, Mullin brought Schroyer onstage at a National Sheriffs’ Association event, calling him a “good friend of mine” and noting DHS had recently hired him.

On Saturday, Mullin quickly praised Schroyer in a statement highlighting the former trooper’s 29-year career and his work with federal and state partners on a U.S. immigration enforcement program.

“President Trump made a great pick, and I’m confident Lance’s strong leadership and firsthand experience will empower the men and women of ICE to deport criminal illegal aliens, secure the homeland, and protect the American people,” Mullin said.

If confirmed, Schroyer will lead ICE at a time when the public mood has soured on Trump’s immigration crackdown, which sent surges of federal immigration officers into American cities to round up immigrants. Those raids sent tensions soaring and prompted clashes between protesters and law enforcement, leading to the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis earlier this year.

Trump returned to the White House on a promise of mass deportations, and ICE has been a central executor of that vision. The agency is undergoing massive growth from a one-time injection of $75 billion last year, which has allowed for the hiring of 12,000 officers and increased detention capacity.

Mullin, who started in his role in March, has promised to keep his department out of the headlines and has indicated a softer tone on immigration, although he is expected to align with the president’s priorities on mass deportations.

Claire Trickler-McNulty, a former senior ICE official, said prior confirmed ICE directors have often been attorneys, though some state and local law enforcement officials have also been nominated. She said his background in Oklahoma suggests Mullin likely had influence over the pick.

“I think probably given the attention on ICE, he wants to feel like he has somebody he can trust in there,” she said in an interview.

John Torres, another senior ICE official, said Schroyer faces an uphill climb toward Senate confirmation but his experience being at the state and local level instead of the federal level might help.

“He won’t have any of that baggage, where they’re going to turn around and say, oh, well, he worked for this administration or that,” Torres said.

Schroyer’s nomination comes after former ICE director Todd Lyons resigned at the end of May. David Venturella, a former executive at a private prison operator, has been serving as the acting head of the agency. Venturella is expected to stay on as the acting director until Schroyer is Senate confirmed, according to a DHS official speaking on condition of anonymity.

ICE has not had a Senate-confirmed director since the Obama administration, a result of polarizing politics around the agency and immigration policy.

NEW YORK (AP) — Saks Global, the parent company of Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue and Bergdorf Goodman, officially emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy Friday with fewer stores, less debt, a more focused strategy to pamper the affluent — and a new name.

The company said Friday that the new entity will be called Exemplar Luxury Group, and with an improved balance sheet, including a nearly 75% debt reduction and $500 million in extra financing. Its CEO, Geoffroy van Raemdonck, said the New York-based company is ready for its next chapter after navigating several tumultuous years.

“Today is really a brand new day for the organization and a new day where these three iconic banners have the right funding, the right equity and a bright future ahead of them,” van Raemdonck told The Associated Press on Friday during a phone interview.

Van Raemdonck said that the new name signifies the company’s focus on having an exemplary shopping experience — the best merchandise, and better personalized service with customers, with help from its sales associates and the treasure trove of data it has on its customers. The company employs more than 1,500 sales associates who have sold more than $1 million of goods each, he said.

Saks Global had filed for bankruptcy protection in January of this year, buffeted by rising competition and the massive debt it took on to buy its rival in the luxury sector, Neiman Marcus, in July 2024.

Before the bankruptcy, there were 33 Saks stores and 36 Neiman Marcus locations, according to the company, as well as its Bergdorf Goodman store on Fifth Avenue and roughly 70 Saks Off 5th discount stores.

Now, there are a total of 49 stores — 15 Saks Fifth Avenue stores, 33 Neiman Marcus stores and its Bergdorf Goodman store. The company shuttered most of its Saks Off Fifth discount stores, and it now has 12 outlets, the company said.

Exemplar Luxury Group said it has been teaming up with Pentwater Capital Management and Bracebridge Capital throughout its restructuring process. Both firms will have two representatives on the seven-person board. In addition, van Raemdonck as well as former Ulta Beauty CEO Dave Kimbell and Philippe Schaus, who most recently served as Global CEO of Moët Hennessy, will serve on the board, the company said.

.