Two of the protesters who held up a semi-final match at the US Open on Thursday night as they protested against fossil fuels were hit with criminal charges. 

Gregory Schwedock, 35, of New York City, and Sayak Mukhopadhyay, 50, of White Plains, New York, were charged with criminal trespass after the two were involved in an environmental protest that led to a 50 minute game delay at the US Open. Mukhopadhyay also faces a disorderly conduct charge. 

During the second set of the match between American Coco Gauff, 19, and Karolína Muchová, 27, from the Czech Republic, Schwedock, Mukhopadhya, and a woman stood up and started yelling “end fossil fuels.”

The New York City Police told Forbes that they responded to reports of attendants at the match acting “disorderly” and that one “had apparently glued his feet to the floor.”

“Personnel from the Emergency Service Unit responded and were able to safely free the male and take him into custody,” police said. 

One of the protesters later claimed that the protest was raising awareness for an existential threat. 

“There is no tennis on a dead planet. There is no art on a dead planet, everything that we take for granted as our way of life will cease to exist,” Mukhopadhyay told NBC. 

Gauff had won the first set and was leading in the second 1-0 when play was halted; she ultimately won the match 6-4, 7-5. The crowd booed the protesters, and yelled at them as they were taken away by the New York City Police Department. “You suck!” and “F*** you!” people yelled. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

While Gauff appeared frustrated during the match with the delay, she later said that she couldn’t be “upset” with the protesters 

“I always speak about preaching about what you feel and what you believe in,” Gauff said. “It was done in a peaceful way, so I can’t get too mad at it. Obviously I don’t want it to happen when I’m winning, up 6-4, 1-0, and I wanted the momentum to keep going. But hey, if that’s what they felt they needed to do to get their voices heard, I can’t really get upset at it.”

Extinction Rebellion, a radical environmentalist group, said that it was behind the protest. 

“Today’s action highlights the neglect of the climate and ecological breakdown by governments and corporations,” the group said. “The group emphasizes that the present socioeconomic system can’t protect people from the crises to come because its very structure creates these crises and then ignores them.”

California may soon require judges to look at whether a parent goes along with a child’s “gender identity” during custody disputes, worrying advocates who say parents could lose custody if they don’t agree with a child’s claims to be transgender. 

The Democrat-backed bill, AB 957, passed the State Assembly on Friday and the State Senate on Thursday. If signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, the bill would require judges to consider whether a parent “affirms” a child’s “gender identity” among other factors during custody battles. 

According to the bill, “the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes, among other comprehensive factors, a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression. Affirmation includes a range of actions and will be unique for each child, but in every case must promote the child’s overall health and well-being.”

Assemblymember Lori Wilson said that “affirmation” could mean whether a parent provided gender-targeted toys, nail polish, and hair length, according to the Associated Press. 

The bill passed the Assembly 57-16 and was opposed by California Republicans and conservative groups, who say the bill will erode parents’ rights and be easily manipulated. 

“This bill will require judges to equate ‘affirmation of child gender transition’ directly with a child’s ‘health, safety, and welfare’ when determining custody or visitation rights.  Consequently,  parents who do not affirm the chosen gender identity of their child (of any age) risk having their child taken from them,” said the California Family Council. 

In June, when the bill was making its way through the legislature, one attorney representing a mother of a girl who used to have gender dysphoria said that, if passed, the measure could be easily manipulated.

“Family court judges will be compelled to favor the child who will affirm the child’s delusion. Parents can easily game the system and use gender as retaliation against each other. What happens when one parent will socially affirm the child but will not agree to medicalize? Does the parent willing to do more transitioning prevail?” lawyer Erin Friday said. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, who has voiced some criticism of transgender ideology, said that the bill was dangerous. 

“This bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. What it actually means is that if you disagree with the other parent about sterilizing your child, you lose custody.Utter madness!” he posted to X.