NEW YORK (AP) — It’s an idea whose time, as it were, may have come — again.

The twice-yearly changing of the clocks in the United States could be a thing of the past if legislation currently in Congress that calls for permanent daylight time makes it through. But even as annoying as some find the back-and-forth of the time shift in the spring and the fall, that doesn’t necessarily mean sticking to one would go over well. America has tried it before, most recently in the 1970s, and it didn’t last.

Now it’s a new era, one full of people working at home who didn’t before — and advances in sleep science that tell a more nuanced tale.

Could this time (shift) be the charm?

What’s going on this time around?

The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to pass a bill that makes the shift to daylight saving time, when clocks are moved forward one hour, become permanent.

Currently, the shift is forward in spring and back to standard time in fall as a way to give people more daylight time in the summer evenings. But the semi-annual change has few fans – an AP-NORC poll last year found that only 12% of American adults were in favor of it, while almost half opposed it. Proponents of a single time include the American Medical Association and American Academy of Sleep Medicine — outfits to whom daily rhythms are deeply important.

The Senate would have to pass it before it could be signed into law. President Donald Trump has indicated he’s supportive.

So just change it. What’s the big deal?

Not so fast. People may not like making the change, but history shows they also don’t like living with even less morning light in the winter months, when daylight hours are shorter than in summer.

In 1973, Congress passed a law instituting permanent daylight saving time for what was supposed to be a trial period from January 1974 to April 1975. It lasted until October, when it was repealed after public outcry. Among the concerns was worry that schoolchildren would have to get to class in darkness. These days, school starting times have started to shift later.

Kevin Birth, a professor of anthropology at Queens College whose research focuses on cultural concepts of time, was in elementary school in Syracuse, New York, at the time and remembers it vividly. “I had to get up for school and it was like it was midnight,” he said. “It was just pitch black and it remained pitch black into the school day.”

If the U.S. decides to try it again, he said, more has to change than just the clocks. The time zones across the country would need to be adapted as well. The current four zones wouldn’t be adequate – they cover so much ground that sunrise comes at different times in western and eastern parts of each zone.

OAKLAND (AP) — A group of 26 Meta employees has sued the company, claiming it used artificial intelligence systems to select people for layoffs, disproportionately targeting those on medical, parental or family leave.

They are among the 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its workforce, Meta said it would lay off in May. The lawsuit filed late Monday in federal court in Oakland, California, claims the company used internal AI systems, keystroke and activity-monitoring data, AI token-usage dashboards and algorithmically assisted performance rankings, among other methods, to determine who would be laid off.

Many of these scores and ratings “by design, cannot be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose output is reduced by a disability,” the lawsuit says. Meta, according to the lawsuit, did not account for protected leave when taking employees’ scores into account and “did not pause the system for the individualized, leave- and accommodation-neutral review that the law requires.”

As a result, people on protected medical or family leave were disproportionately selected for layoffs, the lawsuit says. Each of the 26 anonymous employees in the lawsuit took protected leave and requested or received a reasonable accommodation for disability. Though they have been notified of their layoffs, all 26 remain employed by Meta, with separations set to begin July 22.

Many workers were on parental leave

Many of the employees in the lawsuit took pregnancy or parental leave, during which time they wouldn’t have worked and thus had their measured output reduced. Others took medical leave — one disclosed a “serious health condition and disability” that was approved by Meta’s own provider. But according to the lawsuit, he was “discouraged and deterred from taking that leave by a manager” who warned that doing so would result in his selection for the anticipated layoffs. Meta offered no accommodation for his disability, the lawsuit says.

Meta said in a statement that the claims “lack merit and are not based on facts. Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.”

About half the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons. Eight are women who had taken maternity or pregnancy-related leave, four are men who had taken parental leave and one is a woman who had taken leave to care for a family member and later bereavement leave.

The lawsuit says the layoffs violated several state and federal laws, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Lawsuit cites ‘disparate impact’

The complaint also references “disparate impact liability,” a longstanding civil rights concept that President Donald Trump’s administration moved to abandon. Disparate impact, codified in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, holds that facially neutral policies or practices can be discriminatory if they disproportionately burden a protected class of workers and aren’t necessary for the job.

The Trump administration has ordered federal agencies to deprioritize disparate impact liability enforcement, arguing that its use undermines “meritocracy” and encourages the assumption that any racial or gender imbalance in a workforce is the result of discrimination. The order has led the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to drop discrimination cases on behalf of some workers.

However, the lawsuit against Meta underscores that companies remain vulnerable to disparate impact litigation in the age of AI despite the Trump administration’s efforts to stamp out its enforcement. Workers are still free to pursue such lawsuits on their own if the EEOC rejects their complaints, and several state laws specifically prohibit disparate impact discrimination.

In the case against Meta, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the company’s “algorithmically assisted selection process, by systematically recording such absences as reduced performance, falls more heavily on women than on men.” That’s because women disproportionately take pregnancy and caregiving leave, according to the lawyers. The lawsuit cites Title VII’s prohibition on employment practices that have a disparate impact, as well as a landmark 1971 Supreme Court ruling that recognized the doctrine.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers said in a statement that the lawsuit asks for one thing — preserving the status quo to keep the workers employed pending arbitration. That’s because “once these separations are final, the harms are irreversible: employer-subsidized health coverage lost during pregnancy, postpartum recovery, and active medical treatment; time-bound leave rights extinguished; unvested equity forfeited; and immigration consequences triggered.”

BIDDEFORD, Maine (AP) — An Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shot a motorist in Maine on Monday, the second time in a week that ICE has used deadly force and at least the ninth death since President Donald Trump began his immigration crackdown.

Immigrant rights groups identified the man who was killed in Biddeford as a 26-year-old native of Colombia. The Colombian Embassy said it was in contact with U.S. authorities about the Colombian national’s death and “is providing the necessary consular assistance to his family.”

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, said in a post on X that agents were surveilling an address for a person with a final order of removal from the country. When ICE tried to stop a vehicle driven by someone coming from that address, the “vehicle attempted to flee the scene and, fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon,” the department said.

Prior to the brief ICE statement on the incident, Maine U.S. Sen. Angus King said Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told him the officer opened fire after the man tried to use his vehicle as a weapon against ICE agents in Biddeford, a coastal city roughly 15 miles (24 kilometers) southwest of Portland. The agents involved didn’t have body cameras, he said.

When asked about the contrasting statements, King told CNN that that’s what the investigation is all about.

“Did this young man actually try to run over an ICE agent or was he in danger of running over other people in the street?” he said. “Was there a reasonable expectation of bodily harm or deadly force to justify this shooting?”

DHS did not immediately respond to an email seeking clarity on what led to the shooting.

King, an independent, said Mullin also told him the officers were in Biddeford to serve an arrest warrant but that it was not for the person who was shot. King said Mullin told him that earlier information that the man was the target of an enforcement action was incorrect.

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said Mullin told her the Homeland Security Department’s Office of Inspector General is investigating in cooperation with the FBI.

Messages seeking comment were left for the inspector general’s office and the Maine Department of Public Safety.

The Maine attorney general’s office, which is also investigating, said initial statements suggest the motorist was trying to flee in the direction of the agent. The office said the agent who killed him has been placed on leave.

Witness says he heard driver say, ‘I tried to stop’

Daniel Boucher said he looked out his third-floor window after hearing a “pop, pop, pop” sound and saw a small car “turned 90 degrees to the curb” with an SUV behind it. The driver was wounded and the car started moving down the street until the SUV hit it, Boucher said.

“His face was bloody. His head was bloody,” Boucher said, getting choked up. “I clearly heard the victim say, ‘I tried to stop.'”

Boucher said he saw an ICE officer bring a medical bag to where the man was lying before an ambulance and fire truck arrived. At one point, Boucher said, the agent who shot the man walked close to him.

“I was emotional and I just let him have it, and he looked at me and said, ‘He tried to run me over,’ or something to that effect,” Boucher said. “I don’t remember his exact words.”

Video from a security camera at a nearby business, obtained by the AP, shows a white vehicle approaching an intersection at a modest speed before making several slow circles. A law enforcement SUV blocked its path and two officers open the driver’s door and dragged out a limp body.

It was not clear from the video at what point shots were fired.

The man was authorized to work in the US, advocates say

Two advocacy groups — the Maine Immigrants’ Rights Coalition and Presente! — said the man who was killed was authorized to work in the U.S.

After the shooting, his family contacted the Immigrants’ Rights Coalition, but they weren’t ready to speak publicly about the shooting, said the group’s executive director, Mufalo Chitam.

Mary Hayes, who lives close to where the shooting happened, said the man lived nearby with his wife and daughter.

“I watched a wife fall to her knees looking at her husband’s dead body on the ground,” Hayes told the AP as she held a piece of cardboard with “No ICE Stop ICE” written on it. “I watched a little girl crying with a little pink backpack on because she’s never going to see her father again.”

Sadie Dilboy said the man killed in the shooting regularly came to her laundromat and would bring his daughter, who he’d give quarters to buy candy from the vending machine.

“He was such a good person,” she said. “He was always cleaning up.”

Anti-ICE protesters gather near the scene

Several hundred demonstrators gathered in Biddeford on Monday night to wave anti-ICE signs and call for the agency to be abolished.

“We will always be a city of immigrants,” said Maine Speaker of the House Ryan Fecteau, a Democrat from Biddeford.

A handful of pro-ICE and pro-Trump protesters demonstrated across the street.

Some demonstrators had gathered in the city within hours of the shooting. Amy Goodman arrived with a sign that said “Stop Killing Us” and directed it toward police working at the scene.

“Sadly, it’s something we’re seeing a whole lot more often lately, and I’m mad about it,” she said.

A recent uptick in Trump’s immigration crackdown

On July 7, an ICE officer fatally shot 52-year-old Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, of Houston, after federal agents driving unmarked vehicles pursued him while he was taking his construction crew to a job site.

The shootings come amid a Trump administration push to carry out its mass deportations agenda. During the five-day period at the end of June, ICE arrested more than 10,000 people.

The figures indicate that while the administration is no longer cracking down on individual cities, the arrests are surging. The administration’s enforcement efforts were widely condemned last winter after the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minnesota.

Hundreds of Maine ICE arrests since Trump’s return

ICE had a significant presence in Maine earlier this year, which prompted several protests. Immigration officials later said in late January that they had ceased “enhanced operations” in Maine after hundreds of arrests.

A Homeland Security spokesperson said at the time that some Maine arrests were of people “convicted of horrific crimes” including aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of a child.

Court records show that while some had felony convictions, others had unresolved immigration proceedings or had been arrested but never convicted of a crime.

ICE arrested 546 people in Maine between the start of Trump’s second term and March 11, 2026, the most recent data available, according to ICE arrest data provided to the University of California, Berkeley Deportation Data Project and analyzed by the AP.

About 45% of arrested people had criminal backgrounds. During the equivalent 416-day period before Trump took office, roughly 69% of those arrested had criminal backgrounds, the data shows.