Civil rights groups sue to restore jobs at Homeland Security oversight offices that were gutted
WASHINGTON (AP) — Three advocacy groups are suing the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Kristi Noem, seeking to restore staff jobs at three gutted offices that oversee civil rights protections across the department's broad mission.
The lawsuit was filed Thursday by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organization, the Southern Border Communities Coalition, and the Urban Justice Center.
On March 21, Homeland Security said it was implementing a reduction in force at the three offices: the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, and the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.
When asked about the lawsuit Thursday, department officials said they're 'committed to civil rights protections' but called the three offices a roadblock.
'These offices have obstructed immigration enforcement by adding bureaucratic hurdles and undermining DHS's mission,' the department said.
Democrats have suggested that the cuts were about removing transparency at the department, which is key to the Trump administration's mass deportation efforts.
The groups suing on Thursday said that because Congress set up the offices, only Congress can shutter them.
They're asking the court to force Homeland Security to immediately rehire the staff and let them do their oversight jobs without interference.
The three offices are key to immigration oversight, but the jobs go beyond that. Homeland Security is the country's third-largest Cabinet agency, with responsibilities for airport security, protecting the president and other top leaders, and responding to disasters.
The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties was created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, with the mission of protecting civil liberties in the department created in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. It investigates hundreds of complaints a year about the agency's mission and recommends changes as necessary.
The Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman is an independent office within Homeland Security — not connected to either Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection. Its job is to make sure immigration detention facilities are safe and humane. Staff regularly visited detention facilities to do things such as making sure detainees have proper medical care. According to the lawsuit, staff visited over 100 detention facilities each month.
The Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman is responsible for helping people or businesses resolve issues with the agency that oversees immigration benefits. According to the lawsuit, it handled nearly 24,000 requests for assistance during fiscal year 2023 through its online portal. Those requests can range from helping a business figure out why an
H-1B visa
renewal is taking so long to helping someone who applies for a green card or work permit figure out why it was rejected.
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre
Ohio National Guard members with gas masks and rifles advance toward Kent State University students during an anti-war protest on May 4, 1970. More than a dozen students were killed or injured when the guard opened fire. (.) This article was originally published by The Trace. Earlier in June, President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines to quell anti-deportation protests and secure federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles. The move, some historians say, harks back 55 years to May 4, 1970, when Ohio's Republican governor summoned the National Guard to deal with students demonstrating against the Vietnam War at Kent State University. Guard members were ordered to fire over the students' heads to disperse the crowd, but some couldn't hear because they were wearing gas masks. The troops fired at the students instead, killing four and wounding another nine. The shooting served as a cautionary tale about turning the military on civilians. 'Dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting,' Brian VanDeMark, author of the book 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' wrote this week for The Conversation. We asked VanDeMark, a history professor at the United States Naval Academy, more about the parallels between 1970 and today. His interview has been edited for length and clarity. After the Kent State shooting, it became taboo for presidents or governors to even consider authorizing military use of force against civilians. Is the shadow of Kent State looming over Los Angeles? VanDeMark: For young people today, 55 years ago seems like a very long time. For the generation that came of age during the '60s and were in college during that period, Kent State is a defining event, shaping their views of politics and the military. There are risks inherent in deploying the military to deal with crowds and protesters. At Kent State, the county prosecutor warned the governor that something terrible could happen if he didn't shut down the campus after the guard's arrival. The university's administration did not want the guard brought to campus because they understood how provocative that would be to student protesters who were very anti-war and anti-military. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The military is not trained or equipped to deal well with crowd control. It is taught to fight and kill, and to win wars. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that deploying the guard to Los Angeles is inflammatory. What do you fear most about this new era of domestic military deployment? People's sense of history probably goes back five or 10 years rather than 40 or 50. That's regrettable. The people making these decisions — I can't unpack their motivation or perceptions — but I think their sense of history in terms of the dangers inherent in deploying U.S. troops to deal with street protests is itself a problem. There are parallels between Kent State and Los Angeles. There are protesters throwing bottles at police and setting fires. The Ohio governor called the Kent State protesters dissidents and un-American; President Trump has called the Los Angeles demonstrators insurrectionists, although he appears to have walked that back. What do you make of these similarities? The parallels are rather obvious. The general point I wish to make, without directing it at a particular individual, is that the choice of words used to describe a situation has consequences. Leaders have positions of responsibility and authority. They have a responsibility to try to keep the situation under control. Are officers today more apt to use rubber bullets and other so-called less-lethal rounds than in 1970? Even though these rounds do damage, they're less likely to kill. Could that save lives today? Most likely, yes. In 1970, the guard members at Kent State, all they had were tear gas canisters and assault rifles loaded with live ammunition. Lessons have been learned between 1970 and today, and I'm almost certain that the California National Guard is equipped with batons, plastic shields, and other tools that give them a range of options between doing nothing and killing someone. I've touched one of the bullets used at Kent State. It was five and a half inches long. You can imagine the catastrophic damage that can inflict on the human body. Those bullets will kill at 1,000 yards, so the likelihood that the military personnel in Los Angeles have live ammunition is very remote. Trump authorized the deployment of federal troops not only to Los Angeles but also to wherever protests are 'occurring or are likely to occur,' leading to speculation that the presence of troops will become permanent. Was that ever a consideration in the '60s and '70s, or are we in uncharted waters here? In the 1960s and early 1970s, presidents of both parties were very reluctant to deploy military forces against protests. Has that changed? Apparently it has. I personally believe that the military being used domestically against American citizens, or even people living here illegally, is not the answer. Generally speaking, force is not the answer. The application of force is inherently unpredictable. It's inherently uncontrollable. And very often the consequences of using it are terrible human suffering. Before the Kent State shooting, the assumption by most college-aged protesters was that there weren't physical consequences to engaging in protests. Kent State demonstrated otherwise. In Los Angeles, the governor, the mayor, and all responsible public officials have essentially said they will not tolerate violence or the destruction of property. I think that most of the protesters are peaceful. What concerns me is the small minority who are unaware of our history and don't understand the risks of being aggressive toward the authorities. In Los Angeles, we have not just the guard but also the Marines. Marines, as you mentioned, are trained to fight wars. What's the worst that could happen here? People could get killed. I don't know what's being done in terms of defining rules of engagement, but I assume that the Marines have explicitly been told not to load live ammunition in their weapons because that would risk violence and loss of life. I don't think that the guard or the Marines are particularly enthusiastic about having to apply coercive force against protesters. Their training in that regard is very limited, and their understanding of crowd psychology is probably very limited. The crowd psychology is inherently unpredictable and often nonlinear. If you don't have experience with crowds, you may end up making choices based on your lack of experience that are very regrettable. Some people are imploring the Marines and guard members to refuse the orders and stay home. You interviewed guard members who were at Kent State. Do you think the troops deployed to Los Angeles will come to regret it? Very often, and social science research has corroborated this, when authorities respond to protests and interact with protesters in a respectful fashion, that tends to have a calming effect on the protesters' behavior. But that's something learned through hard experience, and these Marines and guard members don't have that experience. The National Guard was deployed in Detroit in 1967; Washington, D.C. in 1968; Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992; and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. Have the Marines ever been deployed? Or any other military branch? Yes. In 1992, in the wake of the Rodney King controversy, the California governor at the time, a Republican named Pete Wilson, asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy not only the guard but also the Marines to deal with street riots in Los Angeles. That's the last time it was done. And how did that go? I'm not an expert on this, but I assure you that the senior officers who commanded those Marines made it very clear that they were not to discharge their weapons without explicit permission from the officers themselves, and they were probably told not to load their weapons with live ammunition. In 1967, during the Detroit riots, the Michigan National Guard was called out to the streets of Detroit. When the ranking senior officer arrived, he ordered the soldiers to remove their bullets from their rifles. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Senate GOP's hard-liners are suddenly sounding softer on the megabill
The Senate's conservative hard-liners vowed to wage holy war against the 'big, beautiful bill.' Now they appear to be coming to Jesus. The recent rhetorical downshift from some of the loudest GOP critics of the pending megabill underscores the political reality for conservatives: As much as they want to rail publicly about the legislation and the need to address any number of pressing national emergencies in it, very few are willing to buck President Donald Trump on his biggest priority. None of them are ready to cave just yet. But the White House and their GOP colleagues increasingly believe that three senators in particular — Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah and Rick Scott of Florida — are now on track to support the bill. Johnson, in particular, has softened his once-fierce criticism of the legislation in recent days. 'We all want to see President Trump succeed,' he said in a brief interview this week. 'Everybody is trying to help. That's why, if I seem to have been striking a more hopeful tone, it's because I am more hopeful.' Just a couple of weeks ago, Johnson was demanding near-unworkable levels of spending cuts and warning that the bill would drive the nation off a fiscal cliff. Then the Trump administration and members of Republican leadership went to work. Johnson made a pitch to Trump during a recent one-on-one phone call to let him work with administration officials on his deficit reduction plan. That led to a meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council. A person with knowledge of the meeting, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said afterward that the White House is 'optimistic that there's a path to getting Johnson to yes.' Trump also privately urged Johnson during a meeting with other Finance Committee Republicans last week to speak more positively about the bill. The callout came after Trump officials — and Trump himself — grew annoyed watching Johnson savage the bill on television. His message: You should be out there selling this bill proudly, he told Johnson, according to two White House officials granted anonymity to describe the meeting — arguing that even if he doesn't love every detail, there was plenty in the bill for Republicans to be proud of. 'When the president says, 'Ron, you've been so negative, that's just not even helpful,' I want to be helpful,' Johnson said, acknowledging Trump's message in the meeting and admitting he has 'downplayed what is good in the bill.' One of the White House officials summarized the approach to Johnson: 'Don't be negative to create leverage for yourself,' the person said. 'If you want to negotiate, like, we can negotiate in private. We're all reasonable people.' The hands-on efforts to win over Johnson are part of a larger effort to try to help the fiscal hawks find a soft landing — and at least the semblance of some concessions that will be able to hold up as wins in the end. That's played out in face-to-face meetings with administration officials, negotiations over pet provisions and discussions about how to continue the fight to cut budget deficits down the road. Being able to win over their deficit hawks would be a huge boon to Majority Leader John Thune, who has acknowledged that he's got one hard 'no' vote in Sen. Rand Paul, who firmly opposes the bill's debt-ceiling hike. Thune can only afford to lose three GOP senators, with Vance breaking a tie. That has given the fiscal hawks leverage, since the GOP leaders can't afford to lose all of them, and that's on top of the other potential headaches they have to navigate elsewhere in the conference. To hear the fiscal hawks tell it, they are sounding a more positive note about their ability to support the bill because the administration is starting to take their demands seriously. To help appease their holdouts, GOP leaders have tried to scrounge up additional savings beyond what is included in the House bill. 'I believe we'll get a deal done. I'm doing everything I can to represent my state,' Scott said in a brief interview. GOP leaders are working to assuage Lee by tucking one of his top priorities into the bill. The deregulatory proposal, known as the REINS Act, was initially expected to run afoul of Senate rules for the party-line reconciliation process, but leaders have been working to try to find a version that could pass muster. House conservatives, meanwhile, have grown increasingly worried that the Senate, with the blessing of their fiscal-hawk allies, will send back a bill that waters down some of their hard-fought victories. The House Freedom Caucus has laid out public demands, while its members have met privately with Lee, Scott and Johnson to strategize about additional spending reductions and maintaining their policy wins. The Senate hard-liners aren't ready to concede just yet. Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has promised Johnson he will advance a second reconciliation bill, giving conservatives another chance to enact cuts. But Johnson said that wouldn't be enough to get him on board. Instead he wants a 'forcing mechanism' to maintain a longer-term push to return to 2019 spending levels. He's letting the White House brainstorm other ideas and described himself as 'reasonably flexible.' Lee said in a statement he's 'been working with my colleagues and the White House to make the Big Bill Beautiful.' But added: 'It's not where it needs to be yet.' 'We need to sell federal land to help fix the housing crisis, terminate benefits that flow to illegals, end the Green New Scam, and get rid of the Medicaid provider tax. I want to see this effort cross the finish line, but we need to do more,' he added. Even as they continue to push, their colleagues see the signs of late softening — and aren't surprised whatsoever. 'They'll fold,' said a GOP colleague who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said that Republicans have 'made progress' with Johnson and 'I wouldn't count him out.' And two others, Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and John Kennedy (R-La.), said they expect Lee, Scott and Johnson to come around when the bill comes up for a final vote, even if they don't ultimately love every provision. 'They're very gettable,' Kennedy said. 'At some point people are just going to have to decide, is this good enough?' Rachael Bade and Meredith Lee Hill contributed reporting.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
On his 79th birthday, President Trump is getting a military parade – and millions of expected protestors
As a military-style parade rolls through Washington, DC, on Saturday – President Donald Trump's birthday – millions are expected to take to the streets to form what organizers believe will be the strongest display of opposition to the administration since the president took office in January. More than 1,800 protests across all 50 states are planned through the No Kings movement, which organizers say seeks to reject 'authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics, and the militarization of our democracy.' The mobilization was planned as a direct response to Trump's military parade in celebration of the 250th anniversary of the US Army – which coincides with his 79th birthday. In recent days, all eyes have been on Los Angeles, where Trump has deployed the National Guard and Marines in response to massive protests decrying immigration sweeps – an extraordinary move that protest organizers say has only served to mobilize participants to speak out against authoritarianism. Prev Next Demonstrators have since been protesting immigration action in cities across the nation, including New York, Seattle, Chicago, Austin, Las Vegas and Washington, DC, while the administration has doubled down on its display of military force against its own citizens. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has suggested that the order used to federalize the National Guard to Los Angeles could make way for a similar response to protests in other states. And Texas Gov. Greg Abbott deployed the state's National Guard this week ahead of planned protests, including a 'No Kings' event in San Antonio on Saturday. Missouri's governor, Mike Kehoe, also activated the state's National Guard on Thursday 'as a precautionary measure in reaction to recent instances of civil unrest across the country.' 'We respect, and will defend, the right to peacefully protest, but we will not tolerate violence or lawlessness in our state,' the Republican governor said in a statement. Following the Hands Off! and 50501 protests this Spring, Saturday's demonstrations won't be the first nationwide rejection of Trump's policies – but organizers expect it to be the largest. 'Even conservative estimates say that 3.5 million people turned out for the Hands Off mobilization in April. That's already 1% of the population of the US,' Ezra Levin, co-executive director of Indivisible, the organization backing the No Kings movement, told CNN in a statement. 'No Kings is on track to exceed that by millions more. This is historic.' Officials have estimated Saturday's parade, which will flaunt 7 million pounds of machines and weaponry through Washington, DC, on the president's birthday, could cost up to $45 million. Protest organizers are keeping the planned rallies out of the Capitol, hoping to pull focus away from the spectacle. Instead, a flagship rally is being held in Philadelphia Saturday, as No Kings events are planned to kick off in every state of the nation – some with dozens of local events planned. More than 200 protest events are planned in California, and organizers are expecting especially big turnouts in Phoenix, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte and Chicago, according to the No Kings website. There are also a number of protests planned across the nation through other groups, meaning the turnout against the Trump administration could be even larger than projected. On Wednesday evening, No Kings organizers spoke to more than 4,000 people on a Zoom call – many of them local hosts for Saturday's protests – preparing them for the intense weekend ahead. 'If you show up on site, and you feel completely overwhelmed by the numbers – first of all, congratulations,' one organizer said. The leaders offered advice for the hosts and those serving as 'marshals' for the events, people specially designated to help address safety concerns and keep the peace on Saturday. Attendees role-played scenarios with hypothetical characters – a participant frustrated that not enough action is being taken to get out the group's message, a right-wing protestor there to harass attendees – emphasizing safety and non-violence. They offered some basic tips for Saturday: deescalate, empathize, listen, never touch a cop. With the political temperature rising in response to immigration sweeps and the use of the National Guard to reign in demonstrations, many of the nation's cities are already seeing protest activity ahead of Saturday. Meanwhile, local and state authorities have been doing their own prep work. Multiple local officials are warning that violence by protest participants this weekend will not be tolerated. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, who characterized the expected protesters as 'radical anti-American groups,' warned that those who attack law enforcement or destroy property will be prosecuted. Other leaders have been more welcoming to protests. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, a Democrat, has said his city will protect people's right to assemble, while ensuring residents' day-to-day lives aren't disrupted. 'The right to protest peacefully is central to our democracy, and the NYPD is committed to ensuring that people can always exercise that right safely,' New York City's Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said on X this week, as people in the city took to the streets to protest the Trump administration's immigration action. Protest organizers say they have been in touch with local officials ahead of Saturday's events, in an effort to make sure the gatherings run safely and smoothly. The aim, they emphasize, is not violence, but rather to send a clear message to the president on his birthday: 'In America, we don't do kings.' CNN's Dianne Gallagher contributed to this report.
