U.S. attorney general challenges Illinois' new nonprofit diversity law
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WTVO) — U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi has moved to intervene in a lawsuit against Illinois that requires nonprofits to publicly disclose race and gender demographic information.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the intent of 'is to encourage nonprofits to discriminate under the guise of making nonprofit boards more 'diverse.''
A national equal rights organization, American Alliance for Equal Rights, filed suit last month, asking an Illinois federal judge to block the state from enforcing the statute it says unconstitutionally requires nonprofits to publicize their demographic data, and encouraging organizations to discriminate based on race.
The DOJ said Wednesday's intervention was a step toward 'eradicating illegal race and sex preferences across the government.'
'The United States cannot and will not sit idly while a state denies its citizens equal protection under the guise of diversity,' said Attorney General Bondi. 'Discrimination in all its forms is abhorrent and must be eliminated. The Department of Justice will continue to exercise its statutory right to intervene in cases whenever a state encourages DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) instead of merit.'
'This is a case of immense public importance because, as the Supreme Court recognized, ending 'discrimination means eliminating all of it,'' said Acting Associate Attorney General Chad Mizelle. 'This intervention seeks to eliminate discrimination via DEI and ensure the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is enforced.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Bloodthirsty' Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller Want More Military on Streets
Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem are two of the loudest voices in the room encouraging Donald Trump to militarize Los Angeles, a presidential aide has disclosed. Both urged the president to federalize and deploy California Army National Guard troops and send U.S. Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests against federal immigration raids, even though local officials opposed the move. 'Stephen has been clear in all the meetings: More military, faster,' a Trump adviser told Axios. Miller has called for using the military to crack down on protesters who try to block federal agents from making immigration arrests, even though federal troops are generally barred from domestic policing. He's been backed by Noem, who is 'practically bloodthirsty' in demanding tougher immigration enforcement, the adviser said. On Sunday, the homeland security secretary asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to instruct U.S. Marines to arrest rioters. A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security told Axios in a statement that Noem is 'antithetical to bloodthirsty—she is trying to prevent bloodshed.' The Daily Beast has reached out to the White House and DHS for comment. Trump took the extraordinary step over the weekend of deploying 4,000 National Guard troops and hundreds of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles in defiance of California Gov. Gavin Newsom's warnings that sending in federal troops would only make things worse. 'This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation, putting our people, our officers, and even our National Guard at risk,' Newsom said. The governor has sued to block the deployments. After five days of protests, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass enacted a partial curfew Tuesday night for downtown L.A. The reason, she said, was to 'stop bad actors who are taking advantage of the president's chaotic escalation.' Rioters have set off fireworks at officers, lit cars on fire, and thrown pieces of concrete at police, according to the Los Angeles Police Department. Video also shows the police using tear gas, flash-bangs, and non-lethal bullets to disperse crowds downtown. City officials, however, have said that the people peacefully protesting during the day are not the same ones who are clashing with police at night. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said Sunday that Trump had called in the National Guard troops prematurely. The president has long regretted not sending in the National Guard to quell the 2020 protests that broke out in major cities nationwide after the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man. At the time, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, convinced Trump not to invoke the Insurrection Act or deploy active-duty troops against the protesters. A federal law known as the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits using federal troops for domestic policing, except when expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. The main exception to the rule is the Insurrection Act, a compilation of statutes that allows the U.S. president to use the military to quash an armed rebellion or other insurrection, according to Lawfare. As of Wednesday, the president hadn't invoked the Insurrection Act, which limits the federal troops' mission to protecting federal property and personnel. According to Axios, that hasn't stopped Noem and Miller from calling for the military to do more, faster.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'These are Americans': Huntington Park mayor and veteran delivers plea to Marines deployed to protests
As anti-immigration raid protests continue for the sixth day in Los Angeles, a group of 30 regional mayors from Southern California came together to stand in support and solidarity with those peacefully protesting. During a press conference led by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass on Wednesday, Huntington Park Mayor Arturo Flores, who is a Marine veteran, spoke directly to servicemembers deployed to the protests by President Donald Trump's administration. His comments come as over 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines are set to be stationed in Los Angeles, despite fervent objections from some local leaders. Trump said deployment is necessary to "address the lawlessness" and has said that Los Angeles would be "burning to the ground" if he hadn't sent the servicemembers in. MORE: Protests live updates: DOJ calls lawsuit challenging federal deployment a 'crass political stunt' "I have a message for those Marines," Flores began, speaking of the oath that he and all servicemembers take to "defend the Constitution and to defend this country." "That oath was to the American people. It was not to a dictator, it was not to a tyrant, it was not to a president -- it was to the American people," Flores said. "The people that are here in these communities, in the city of LA and the cities that you'll hear from, are Americans, whether they have a document or they don't," Flores added. The protests -- which began Friday in Paramount, California, and have spread to nearby downtown Los Angeles -- were in part sparked by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid carried out in front of a local Home Depot in Huntington Park and in other locations in the area. Since Friday, there have been over 300 people detained by ICE in Los Angeles, according to the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, a local immigrant rights organization. MORE: How the immigration protests in Los Angeles started On Tuesday, the official ICE account on X shared a photo of National Guardsmen on the scene of a detention being carried out by an ICE agent with the caption: "Photos from today's ICE Los Angeles immigration enforcement operation." Speaking of the "militarization of immigration enforcement," Flores said it "has no place in our neighborhoods, and the deployment of Marines on U.S. soil is an alarming escalation that undermines the values of democracy." "We stand against these fear-based tactics that target immigrant communities and erode public trust," he said, calling the Trump administration's actions to deploy over 4,000 servicemembers "political theater that is rooted in fear." 'These are Americans': Huntington Park mayor and veteran delivers plea to Marines deployed to protests originally appeared on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - The Constitution empowers the president to pardon civil offenses
President Trump has exercised the pardon power in ways that have defied custom and surprised many. He pardoned all of the Jan. 6 rioters. He has sometimes bypassed the traditional Department of Justice process for considering pardon requests. The Wall Street Journal recently characterized pardons in Trump's second term as 'the Wild West.' As in other areas, Trump has approached pardons in a way that rejects norms and maximizes executive prerogative. However, Trump has not yet deployed the pardon power in another way that would challenge convention and expand presidential authority: He has not tried to pardon any civil offenses. But he could do it. Many punishments meted out by the federal government take the form of civil penalties rather than criminal sentences. Agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau routinely impose penalties of millions of dollars for alleged civil — not criminal — violations, as well as imposing restrictions on the future conduct of the entities they target. If he wished to do so, Trump could remedy the regulatory overreach of unduly aggressive civil enforcement actions by pardoning the underlying civil offenses. The pardon power is succinctly set forth at Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: 'The president … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.' Conventional wisdom says the pardon power is limited to criminal offenses, but you will notice there is no such statement in the constitutional language. This erroneous conclusion stems largely from the Supreme Court's 1925 decision Ex parte Grossman, in which the court held that the president could pardon criminal contempt of court, but suggested a pardon could not apply to civil contempt. The distinction was based on the court's characterization of criminal contempt as 'punitive' whereas civil contempt is 'remedial.' However, this distinction does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that the pardon power applies only in the criminal context. It could just as easily lead to the conclusion that any 'punitive' measure imposed by the federal government can be pardoned. Indeed, the Supreme Court's reasoning in Grossman was at odds with earlier decisions in which the court sweepingly asserted that the president can pardon 'fines, penalties, and forfeitures of every description arising under the laws of Congress' (The Laura, 1885) and that the pardon power 'extends to every offense known to the law' (Ex parte Garland, 1866). There is no question that the Constitution empowers the president to pardon terrorists and organized crime bosses. It would be deeply incongruous if he could pardon heinous criminal acts but not, for example, civil violations of securities laws. The notion that the president lacks authority to pardon civil offenses is inconsistent with the best reading of the Constitution. The term 'offences' used in the Pardon Clause is a broad category that includes but is not limited to crimes. In addition to the Pardon Clause, the term 'offences' appears in the 'Offences Clause' at Article I, Section 8. This clause gives Congress the power 'To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.' This clause is not limited to criminal acts — the courts and Congress have cited it as authority for civil laws, such as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act. Further, the Pardon Clause states that impeachment cannot be pardoned, though impeachment is not a criminal offense. If the Framers understood that the pardon power applies only to criminal offenses, there would have been no need so explicitly to exclude impeachment from its reach. In the early days of the republic, pardons were used to excuse violations that today would be considered civil in nature. Federal civil offenses did not even exist in the late 18th century. Consequently, early presidents issued pardons for then-criminal offenses that would undoubtedly be treated as civil regulatory violations today. For example, Washington and Adams pardoned minor customs violations. Jefferson issued pardons for 'keeping a billiard table without license' and 'keeping a disorderly house.' Trump has taken unprecedented steps both to reduce regulatory overreach and to reassert executive authority as intended by the Constitution — for example, by removing members of so-called 'independent' agencies. Applying the pardon power to civil offenses where warranted is another legitimate tool available to him. Thomas Beck is the author of 'Constitutional Separation of Powers: Cases and Commentary' and is a former federal agency head. He served as an adviser to the Trump-Vance transition. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
