Connect with us

Utah

A Supreme Court Case About a Railway Could Have Widespread Impacts on U.S. Environmental Laws – Inside Climate News

Published

on

A Supreme Court Case About a Railway Could Have Widespread Impacts on U.S. Environmental Laws – Inside Climate News


A legal fight over an 88-mile proposed railway in Utah has set the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide how federal agencies evaluate the environmental impacts of projects requiring their approval, a decision with the potential to drastically shift how projects are permitted across the nation. 

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, on Tuesday, Dec. 10. It’s the latest development following a U.S. Court of Appeals decision last year that overturned a federal agency’s approval of the railway after a lawsuit from environmental groups and a Colorado county along the project’s path. The appeals court found that the review failed to evaluate the downstream impacts of the project. 

A coalition of seven Utah counties appealed that decision, and the Supreme Court will now decide how far federal agencies can evaluate the impacts of a project under the National Environmental Policy Act—in this case, the immediate area of an 88-mile railway or beyond. 

The Uinta Basin Railway would connect the oil fields of northeastern Utah to the national rail network running directly alongside the Colorado River for more than 100 miles as it makes its way to refineries on the Gulf Coast. If built, the new railway could quadruple the production of the region’s waxy crude oil. Supporters argue it would revitalize the region’s economy, but opponents say it would worsen the region’s already poor air quality, affecting locals and those downstream, including in neighboring Colorado and along the Gulf Coast, where the crude oil will be refined. 

Advertisement

“The primary beneficiaries of the railway would be a handful of CEOs of oil companies who have already manipulated Utah lawmakers into giving them public subsidies, whose objective is to exhaust this unique oil resource as fast as they can, to make as much money as fast as they can,” said Dr. Brian Moench, president of the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, one of the groups opposing the project. “The cost, literally and figuratively, would be borne by everyone else and future generations.”

The Supreme Court’s decision will not determine the final fate of the railway. The appeals court ruling found that the federal Surface Transportation Board in its permitting of the project also violated the Endangered Species Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. What the high court’s decision will do, however, is likely to dictate the scope of NEPA analyses for years to come. Weighing in to try to shape that opinion is a growing chorus of industry groups, state attorneys general, law professors and advocacy groups.

Signed into law in 1970, NEPA is the nation’s bedrock environmental law, requiring federal agencies “to use all practicable means and measures … to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.” NEPA set forth the requirements to evaluate a project’s environmental impacts through documents known as environmental impact statements. 

But the law has been at the center of debate for years, especially in talks of permitting reform from Congress. Any substantial project overseen or regulated by the federal government must undergo a NEPA review, a process that can take years and often opens up projects to litigation. Supporters of the law argue it is critical to stopping bad projects and mitigating problems other projects may bring, while opponents argue its requirements are too cumbersome, especially regarding the nation’s energy transition. Many on both sides agree change is needed, though they dispute how to do so. 

“Seven Counties goes to the heart of environmental impact analyses,” said John Ruple, a law professor and program director at the University of Utah’s Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources and the Environment. “No one likes long and expensive environmental reviews, but environmental reviews are there to protect the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. They make disasters like Love Canal less likely. There are plenty of ways to make NEPA work better without watering down protection in the name of efficiency.”

Advertisement

He likened the case to a car coming to a stop at an intersection. “All agree that the driver must stop, look left and then look right before deciding whether to proceed,” he said. “The question is how far and how carefully the driver must look.” 

The Uinta Basin Railway did not respond to a request for an interview. But officials from the groups behind the project, including Utah counties, have previously dismissed opponents’ concerns in interviews with Inside Climate News, saying the economic benefits are important for the rural community and the environmental issues raised were overblown. 

“We are optimistic about the Supreme Court’s review and confident in the thorough environmental assessments conducted by the STB,” Keith Heaton, director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, said in a press release. “This project is vital for the economic growth and connectivity of the Uinta Basin region, and we are committed to seeing it through.”

Opponents, however, see it as the latest example of the Supreme Court weighing in on cases that should be settled by Congress, and one that could have far-reaching environmental consequences, like the court’s decision earlier this year to overturn the Chevron Doctrine that gave agencies some deference when translating laws into regulations. 

Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch recused himself from the railway case this week after pressure to step back due to his close connection to billionaire Philip F. Anschutz, who would economically benefit from the project. Though his companies are not directly parties to the lawsuit, one of his oil and gas exploration companies filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the justices to put limits on NEPA.

“It’s a perfect example of where the court is doing the dirty work for all of these industries that are interested in changing our environmental laws, reducing community input, limiting transparency into government decision making and making sure that the government puts blinders on before it actually makes big decisions like improving this railway,” said Sam Sankar, the senior vice president of programs at Earthjustice, a U.S.-based nonprofit that takes on environmental lawsuits.

Advertisement

Opponents: Railway Would Worsen Uinta Basin’s Poor Air Quality 

The railway has been in the works since the 2014 formation of Utah’s Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, which is working with the Rio Grande Pacific Corp. and Drexel Hamilton Infrastructure Partners. 

It has long faced opposition from local environmental groups critical of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from burning the oil and the risk of a derailment and spill into the Colorado River. Five groups and Colorado’s Eagle County sued the Surface Transportation Board after it approved the project. Eagle County, where the oil tankers would pass through, has won support for its fight from other Colorado counties as well as the state’s elected officials, led by U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse. 

This story is funded by readers like you.

Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.

Donate Now

Advertisement

Communities across Colorado have already seen the destructive impacts of climate change, from flooding to wildfires. More oil production, Eagle County officials and environmentalists have said, will only worsen matters. They’re also worried about potential spills as the oil travels alongside the Colorado River. That river supplies water to 40 million people and is in a 20-year-long drought.

“We’re sitting here in the western United States watching increased wildfire activity, aridification, drought, all sorts of enormous environmental challenges that have huge human health consequences,” said Deeda Seed, a public lands senior campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity. “The consequences of something like the Uinta Basin Railway need to be fully explored, and this was not done.”

The Uinta Basin, found in northeastern Utah, is already home to some of the worst air pollution in the state. An increase in oil production would only make that worse, railway opponents argue. 

A 2014 study found that Uinta Basin emissions of volatile organic compounds—which can cause serious health consequences like cancer—accumulated to the equivalent of the annual VOC emissions of 100 million cars the previous winter. And oil and gas wells within the region have experienced far higher rates of methane leaks compared to the national average. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that is much more effective at warming the planet in the near-term than carbon dioxide.  

That air pollution came under intense scrutiny during the 2010s, when a nurse midwife in Vernal, the main town within the basin, contacted Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment about the rising number of infant deaths. A state review of health department data showed more such deaths in the Uinta Basin than the national average in 2013, but the study suggested it was not statistically significant.

Advertisement

“Suppose the FDA were to only consider the public health consequences of manufacturing a drug, and not the good or ill effects on millions of people taking the drug. Any court would conclude that such a ruling would be a mockery of the purpose of the FDA,” said Moench, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment’s president. “If the EPA only considered the environmental consequences of constructing a coal-fired power plant and not the public health consequences of the lifetime emissions from operating the plant, any court could grasp the illogic and mockery of the Clean Air Act and question the very purpose of the EPA. 

“The Surface Transportation board’s failure to consider any of the downstream consequences of building this railway is equally absurd, illogical, contrary to the public good, legally indefensible and a gaming of the system by special interests. Laws are supposed to make sense. The public has a right to think that they protect the public interest, not special interests.”

About This Story

Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.

That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.

Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.

Advertisement

Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?

Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.

Thank you,

Advertisement



Source link

Utah

A new law in Utah allows students to opt out of coursework that conflicts with their beliefs

Published

on

A new law in Utah allows students to opt out of coursework that conflicts with their beliefs


OGDEN, Utah — The syllabus in 18-year-old Madelynn Wells’ introductory film studies class assigned “Jaws” first, and then the Spanish dark comedy “Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown.” She said she watched those, and did the written assignments with no problem. 

Around the third week of the term, the assignment was a film called “Pariah.” She hadn’t heard of it, so she looked it up and found that it was a coming-of-age film about a young woman who turned away from her conservative family to live as a lesbian.

Wells, a freshman at Weber State University who said she’s a devout Catholic and a political conservative, felt uneasy. She didn’t want to watch the film, and the idea of writing a paper on it made her even more uncomfortable. 

Advertisement

“I feel like whenever you put something in writing it just feels more serious,” Wells said. 

She decided to drop the class. 

In Utah, with a large and devout religious population, Wells is not alone in trying to uphold her religious beliefs while getting a college education. 

A new state law offers these students a unique protection: If something in a class conflicts with their strongly held religious or personal beliefs, students can ask their professor for an alternative assignment or exam. And as long as their request doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the course, the professor is now required by law to allow the student to opt out. 

Advertisement

The law has some guardrails that protect against accommodation requests that are universally considered absurd. For example, a student won’t be able to claim a moral objection to math in a college algebra course. And the law requires faculty to make these accommodations only in courses that are part of a college’s general education requirement or are required for the student’s major.

Despite those protections, the law is polarizing. Proponents say that students shouldn’t be required to do assignments or take exams on topics that compromise their morals unless it’s absolutely necessary to advance in their field of study. Opponents argue that engaging with beliefs they don’t hold helps students understand their own views better. 

This Utah law is the first of its kind targeting higher education, but it’s an extension of concerns being expressed at the K-12 level. There have been efforts to emphasize conservative and religious values in public schools, and limit what can be taught about subjects including racial history, gender and sexuality. The Utah law is also reminiscent of a case the Supreme Court took up last year, in which the justices sided with parents of public school students who wanted to take their children out of class during lessons that violate their religious beliefs — such as using books about LGBTQ+ identities. President Donald Trump has said that colleges are “corrupting our youth and society with woke, socialist, and anti-American ideology.” 

And over the past few years, there have been dozens of state-level bills — including one in Utah — banning initiatives or programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. Lawmakers in other states have gone after what’s taught in the classroom and how certain issues, like race and gender identity, are discussed. The legislative approach here is different. Instead of dictating what can or cannot be taught, the new Utah law shifts the power to students who now have the agency to decide when curriculum crosses a line for them. 

Amy Reid, who directs the Freedom to Learn initiative at the free speech advocacy organization PEN America, said it’s the responsibility of faculty to help all students get the most out of what’s being taught. Some accommodations — like those for students with disabilities or religious students who need to reschedule exams for religious holidays — help faculty meet that goal, she said. This one, she said, does not. 

Advertisement

Rather than “encourage students to shut their eyes or plug their ears or throw a book out the window,” she said, “You encourage students to engage with ideas, and you provide them with the support that they need — which can be different for individual students — so that they are able to complete the work.”

“Being exposed to ideas that you disagree with doesn’t mean you’re going to change your mind, but it should make you clearer about what it is that you believe and why,” Reid added.

Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

Wells, a zoology major, was taking the film course to fulfill a general education arts credit. After dropping it, she had more than two dozen other classes to choose from to earn that credit. She picked photography. 

Advertisement

But if she had needed the course to graduate, she said she would have had to swallow her discomfort or work up the courage to talk to her professor about an alternative assignment. In the case of the film studies course, perhaps she could have watched a different coming-of-age film, or another film by a Black screenwriter — depending on the goal of that assignment. (Her professor declined to comment.) 

Seth Mulkey, a junior at Utah State University in Logan, said he felt uncomfortable in his general education biology class when the course topic turned to evolution. Mulkey, an evangelical Christian, said he believes that God created the Earth in seven days.

“It can be a bit disheartening to have to learn about something and have something proposed as fact when it’s not something that you’re in agreement with,” Mulkey said. He tries to keep his beliefs to himself and instead, he said, “I’ll do my best to engage from an intellectual standpoint with this idea. So, if this is the assumption we’re making about how this works, we’ll talk about it, we’ll see what conclusions are there.” 

Even if the law had been in effect when he took that biology class, Mulkey said he wouldn’t have asked for an accommodation to get out of uncomfortable group discussions. But writing assignments might have been a different story. 

“If the assignment were to write an essay supporting this view, write an essay about why evolution is correct and why it is the right view of the creation of the world — I think at that point, I would want to step back,” Mulkey said. 

Advertisement

Politicians say left-wing professors push their views. New poll shows students don’t see it that way

Utah appears to be the most religious state in the country. About 76 percent of Utah residents are religious, compared to only about 49 percent nationwide, according to a 2024 report from the Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah. Data from the Pew Research Center shows that about 50 percent of all residents are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and another 13 percent identify as members of other Christian denominations. 

Michael J. Petersen, a Republican state representative from Logan, said the idea for the bill came after his daughter was assigned to write a letter to a legislator in support of LGBTQ+ rights as part of a master’s degree program at an out-of-state college. The assignment was in conflict with her beliefs, so she called her dad for help. 

He helped her write “something that was very, very bland.” She moved on — and he began drafting the legislation. 

Had Petersen’s daughter been an undergraduate student at a public college in Utah, the law would have helped her in two ways. It would have prohibited her instructor from requiring that she take a specific public stance (such as sending a letter) on anything that is a “political, social, religious, moral, or community matter.” And it would have allowed her to ask her professor for an alternative assignment.

Advertisement

Petersen said he believes that his daughter’s assignment was to write the letter and also send it. (The Hechinger Report was not able to independently confirm this.)

Most faculty and education advocates, whatever their politics, agree that requiring her to send the letter would be inappropriate.

Mike Gavin, the president and CEO of the Alliance for Higher Education, said it is reasonable for a professor to ask a student to take on other perspectives during an in-class debate or in a written assignment. But it shouldn’t be taken outside the classroom. 

“In no way, shape or form should they be required to publicly sign their names to something. That would be very problematic,” Gavin said. “That, I think, would be a personnel issue that an institution should handle. That is not an academic freedom issue. That is actually using students for things that are political.” 

And, he said, in 30 years in higher education he’s never heard of it happening. 

Advertisement

Gavin said he thinks it’s unnecessary to give students such broad permission to opt out of coursework that conflicts with their beliefs. There are cases in which it’s appropriate, but those already come up and are handled on a case-by-case basis between professors and students, he said. 

“It’s entirely probable — I say this facetiously and also seriously — that a freshman in college doesn’t know everything yet,” Gavin said. “They need to engage with ideas they have not come across. Even if they end up being uncomfortable for a minute, that doesn’t mean that they’re traumatized.” 

Conservative-leaning civic centers now teach courses at public colleges 

Outside of Utah, many people might gawk at the idea of students opting out of coursework that makes them feel uncomfortable, and worry about the broader implications of such a policy. But among Utahns, there seem to be wider-ranging and more nuanced perspectives.

It’s partly because they’ve been down this road before. In 1998, a Mormon theater student at the University of Utah objected to reading a script with profanity. The student sued the university, accusing faculty of essentially pushing her out after she was given the choice to recite the lines as written or leave the program. 

Advertisement

A settlement agreement required the university to write a policy to deal with coursework objections related to sincerely held beliefs. But the policy still requires that students be able to understand and articulate ideas and theories that are important to the course, regardless of whether they agree with or believe them. The new law does away with that requirement. 

High school speech and debate allows students to find common ground 

Sarah Projansky, the vice provost for faculty and academic affairs at the University of Utah and a professor of film and gender studies who has examined the representation of sexual violence in film and media, said she’s had students walk out of class film screenings during intense moments. If a student says they can’t watch a certain film, she says she works with them to find an alternative. 

“It’s not my business why a student can’t be there. Religion, sincerely held belief of conscience, memory, family memory. It doesn’t matter, they can’t be there,” Projansky said. “Anything that’s not pedagogically necessary is very easy to accommodate.”

Nicole Allen, a communications professor at Utah State, said she thought the law was “a solution in search of a problem,” given existing policies at public institutions and the fact that most professors are able to handle these issues on a case-by-case basis. 

Advertisement

Still, she thinks there’s no need for students to experience “gratuitous discomfort” in the name of academia, she said, as long as accommodations wouldn’t take away from the big-picture goals of the course. 

Although the law doesn’t concern what professors are allowed to teach, some worry that it could still influence academic freedom.

Reid, of PEN America, worries that faculty may overcorrect. They might leave controversial reading materials off their syllabuses or dodge subjects that tend to make students feel uncomfortable, in order to avoid consequences. Those range from the extra work of writing new assignments and test questions to the bureaucratic headache that comes with denying a request to, in the worst and least likely scenario, becoming caught up in a public controversy if a student takes issue with something they’re being taught. 

She said it makes sense that professors would not want to end up like Melissa McCoul, who was fired from Texas A&M University after a student recorded her teaching about gender identity, or Mel Curth, the graduate teaching assistant who lost her job at the University of Oklahoma after she failed a student who had turned in a poorly written psychology paper using only the Bible as a source. 

Behind the turmoil of federal attacks on colleges, some states are coming after tenure 

Advertisement

Though students can now choose to opt out of coursework on difficult topics, many Utah public colleges go to great lengths to encourage them to do the opposite outside the classroom. Many institutions host regular forums where students can come together for facilitated conversations on controversial topics and engage with classmates who hold differing opinions. Often, the colleges offer free lunch to incentivize students to dig into tough topics. 

At Weber State, the dialogue programming is run by the Walker Institute of Politics and Public Service. On a recent Wednesday, a group of students, staff, and current and retired professors came together at a long, conference room table to discuss the war in Iran over sub sandwiches and chips. 

Strict rules protect the integrity of conversations: Everyone has to read the same article, there’s to be no use of tech devices and no note-taking, and nothing that is said should be shared outside that space. 

Leah A. Murray, the institute’s director and a professor of political science and philosophy, said the rules exist so that everyone feels comfortable speaking freely. (The group made an exception to the no note-taking rule for the reporter in the room.) 

Advertisement

Sometimes Murray selects the topic, but sometimes the topic comes from a student.

Adam Nichols, a 43-year-old junior who is studying to become a high school teacher, said he proposed the idea to Murray because he wanted to be able to talk about the Iran conflict with people in his life, but he felt he didn’t quite have the language to feel comfortable doing so.

When he’s been forced to reckon with his strongly held beliefs, both in class and in various Walker Institute Talks, he said, “It forces me to reassess other areas where I may have been wrong. And I would much rather be wrong and be corrected than to continue under those false pretenses.” 

Despite her appreciation for difficult conversations with people she doesn’t necessarily agree with, Murray sees value in making the types of accommodations in the law. Her views are informed by her own experience as a vegan, animal-loving undergraduate who opted to fulfill her science requirement with geology instead of biology to avoid having to dissect a pig.

“I was unwilling to do that,” Murray said. “It was a violation of my conscience at that time.”

Advertisement

She said that experience has also informed the way she handles difficult issues with her students. At the beginning of each term, she says, “If you’re going to go to hell for learning this, please drop this class.”

She delivers it just like that, she said, and her students always laugh. But she’s serious. 

“I don’t want to be responsible for your salvation being denied because you learn something in this class.”

Contact staff writer Olivia Sanchez at 212-678-8402 or osanchez@hechingerreport.org

This story about religious beliefs and college students was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

Advertisement

This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/new-law-utah-student-coursework-religious-beliefs/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

<img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=116311&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/new-law-utah-student-coursework-religious-beliefs/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>



Source link

Continue Reading

Utah

Utah Royals FC Returns Home to Host Racing Louisville FC Chasing Eight Match Unbeaten Streak | Utah Royals

Published

on

Utah Royals FC Returns Home to Host Racing Louisville FC Chasing Eight Match Unbeaten Streak |  Utah Royals


HERRIMAN, Utah (Thursday, May 14, 2026) — Utah Royals FC (5-2-2, 17 pts) returns to the Beehive State this weekend to host Racing Louisville FC (2-1-5, 7 pts) for the first meeting between the two clubs during the 2026 campaign on Sunday, May 17, at America First Field. Kickoff is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. MT.

Utah enters Sunday’s contest following a hard-fought 0-0 road draw against Bay FC at PayPal Park, earning another clean sheet while continuing the club’s streak of never allowing Bay FC to score at home against Utah Royals FC. The point on the road marked Utah’s 11th away point of the 2026 campaign, equaling the club’s combined road-point total from both the 2024 and 2025 seasons.

Advertisement

The Royals were tested throughout the opening half, with one of Bay FC’s best opportunities coming in the 40th minute when Racheal Kundananji broke forward on a dangerous run through the middle of the pitch before entering the penalty area. Midfielder Narumi came up with a crucial defensive stop, diving in front of the attempt and deflecting the shot away with her leg to preserve the scoreless draw. The sequence highlighted Utah’s defensive commitment, with multiple Royals players sprinting back to disrupt the Bay FC attack and protect the clean sheet heading into halftime.

Utah continued to remain organized defensively throughout the second half, limiting Bay FC’s opportunities and securing its fifth clean sheet of the 2026 season. The result extended the Royals’ unbeaten streak to seven consecutive matches while also leaving Bay FC winless against Utah through five all-time meetings between the clubs.

With the result, Utah extended its unbeaten streak to seven consecutive matches, continuing the Royals’ impressive run of form heading into Sunday’s home match against Racing Louisville FC.

Advertisement

Head Coach Jimmy Coenraets and his squad now look to build on an impressive seven-match unbeaten streak, alongside multiple consecutive clean sheets against Chicago Stars FC, Seattle Reign FC, Angel City FC, Houston Dash, and most recently Bay FC. The result against Bay extended Utah’s strong run of form as the Royals continue to establish themselves as one of the league’s toughest defensive sides. Utah now returns home looking to carry that momentum into America First Field in front of its home crowd while aiming to extend both its unbeaten streak and defensive success.

Now in his second full season at the helm, Head Coach Coenraets continues molding a balanced squad built on defensive discipline, midfield control, and attacking creativity. Sunday’s contest presents another opportunity for Utah to extend its unbeaten streak to eight consecutive matches while collecting crucial points at home in front of the club’s supporters at America First Field.

Advertisement

Racing Louisville FC enters the matchup with a 2-1-5 record, most recently earning a 3-1 home victory over Portland Thorns FC after suffering back-to-back defeats. Led by Head Coach Bev Yanez, Racing Louisville FC will look to build on its return to winning form and secure all three points on the road at America First Field.

Sunday’s contest marks the tenth match of the 2026 NWSL regular season for the Royals and the ninth for Racing Louisville FC, with both sides aiming to secure valuable early-season points and strengthen their position in the league standings.

WATCH LIVE on Victory+ with Josh Eastern and McCall Zerboni :: Utah Royals FC vs Racing Louisville | America First Field | 6:00 p.m. MT

Advertisement

WATCH LIVE on Victory+ with Kelley O’Hara and Ali Riley :: Utah Royals FC vs Racing Louisville | America First Field | 6:00 p.m. MT

LISTEN via KSL Sports Radio (102.7 FM / 1160 AM) starting at 5:30 p.m. MT

Advertisement

Following Sunday’s match, Utah Royals FC will remain in the Beehive State to host inaugural side Denver Summit FC on Saturday, May 23, at America First Field. Kickoff is scheduled for 4:30 p.m. MT, with tickets available for purchase here.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Utah

‘It means building hope’: USU brings independence to refugee group through chicken coop project

Published

on

‘It means building hope’: USU brings independence to refugee group through chicken coop project


SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — Refugee communities in Utah are being supplied with farm-fresh eggs and poultry thanks to a collaborative effort between Utah State University and Utah Refugee Goats.

According to Utah Refugee Goats (URG), their goat and poultry farm supplies refugee communities with reliable, affordable and culturally familiar sources of meat. Thanks to Utah State University (USU) agriculture students, it’s getting some ‘egg’stra attention.

Over the last 10 weeks, Brad Borges, a Ph.D candidate for career and technical education, has been taking a hands-on approach with his students to construct a new chicken coop with the support of a mobile construction lab and a $20,000 grant.

According to URG President Abdikadir Hussein, the coop is equipped with fully enclosed roofs and will increase their flock by 40%, meaning faster growth for the Salt Lake City-based farm. As a refugee, though, Hussein said it means even more.

Advertisement

“It means resiliency. It means independence. It means building hope. Hopelessness is something that is killing the most refugees inside,” he expressed. “I came as a refugee, and hope is the last everything that ever came to mind.”

“We feel like even the birds are happy, like they want to get into there,” he added.

From the student perspective, being able to build a project that will be used to generate money for refugee groups was incredibly engaging and inspirational, according to Borges. The sentiment is shared by Joseph Okoh, extension assistant professor of small acreage livestock.

“It’s a win-win situation for everyone,” Okoh said. One, we are getting the coop for the refugee group, these students are going to learn from the construction of the coop, and not only that, everybody is going to be happy to be part of this community to be able to develop a better coop for better production.”

To learn more about issues facing refugees in Utah and how to support them, visit Utah Refugee Goats’ website.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending