WMass adds its voice to ‘No Kings' Day protest at federal building on Saturday
The rally is expected to run from 12 to 2 p.m. in front of 300 State St.
The peaceful, nonpartisan event is one of about 1,800 such events planned across the country for Saturday.
Organizers are calling for 'accountability, democratic integrity, and a renewed commitment to constitutional values,' they said in a statement Wednesday.
The event is co-hosted by Rise Up Western Mass Indivisible; Indivisible Northampton/Swing Left Western Mass; Defending Democracy of Hampden County; and Northampton Resists.
Speakers will include: Massachusetts State Sen. Adam Gomez; John Bonifaz, a constitutional lawyer from Free Speech for People; John Paradis, retired U.S. Air Force officer and VoteVets member; Springfield City Councilor Zaida Govan; representatives from the Mass Senior Action Council, Young Feminist Party, Springfield No One Leaves, and others; plus statements from U.S. Sens. Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren.
'The Saturday rally — coinciding with Flag Day, the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army, and the birthday of President Donald Trump — takes place as the president plans an unprecedented military parade in Washington, D.C.," organizers said. 'Critics note ... the display of tanks and troops reflects a push toward a more militarized form of leadership and personal image.'
Local organizers affirm that in the U.S., 'there are no kings — only the will of the people."
Attendees are encouraged to bring signs and to engage peacefully in the rally.
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
4 days ago
- UPI
DOJ sues Oklahoma to stop offering migrants in-state-tuition
The Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi on Thursday sued Oklahoma over a state law that offers in-state tuition to some in-state undocumented migrants. File Photo by Yuri Gripas/UPI | License Photo Aug. 8 (UPI) -- The Justice Department filed a lawsuit this week challenging an Oklahoma law that provides eligible undocumented migrants with in-state tuition benefits, the latest litigation targeting migrants' access to higher education amid the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration. Though announced Thursday, the lawsuit was filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The law, approved by the state's legislature in 2007, offers in-state tuition at the 25 state-run colleges and universities to anyone -- including undocumented migrants -- who graduated from an Oklahoma high school and resided in the state with a parent or legal guardian while attending the state high school for at least two years before graduation. The lawsuit argues the rule violates two of President Donald Trump's executive orders on immigration -- one signed Feb. 19 directing federal departments and agencies to ensure no taxpayer-funded benefits go to "unqualified aliens," and one April 28 ordering "appropriate" actions to end enforcement of laws and practices "favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens," including those in-state tuition to undocumented migrants. The Justice Department sayd that the law favors undocumented migrants over out-of-state Americans, calling it "unequal treatment," and argues it violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which holds federal law takes precedence precedence over state laws. Prosecutors are asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional and issue a permanent injunction against its enforcement. The state's Republican attorney general, Gentner Drummond, has filed a motion in support of the Trump administration lawsuit, saying Tuesday marked "the end of a longstanding exploitation of Oklahoma taxpayers." "Rewarding foreign nationals who are in our country illegally with lower tuition costs that are not made available to out-of-state American citizens is not only wrong -- it is discriminatory and unlawful," Drummond said in a statement. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has led a renewed crackdown on immigration, seeking to conduct mass deportations and limiting the protections of migrants already in the country. This is the fourth lawsuit since since June challenging state laws offering in-state tuition or tuition benefits to migrants that are unavailable to out-of-state-Americans. In early June, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against a similar Texas law. As in Oklahoma, the Republican-led state sided with the Trump administration, and the two reached an agreement to halt its enforcement. Similar lawsuits have also been filed in Kentucky and Minnesota. Florida ended in-state tuition for undocumented migrants in February. According to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, 23 states and Washington, D.C., provide in-state tuition to undocumented students. Of those, 18 and D.C. provide access to state financial aid.
Politico
4 days ago
- Politico
Federal court says Alabama must use map that creates 2nd Black majority district
The state is expected to appeal the decision, which comes as both parties move to draw new districts for partisan advantage. The Alabama State Capitol stands on May 15, 2019 in Montgomery, Alabama. |By Aaron Pellish 08/07/2025 10:17 PM EDT Alabama must use independently drawn congressional maps that created a second Black-majority district more favorable to Democrats in the state for the rest of the decade, a federal court said Thursday. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ruled unanimously that the state must use the map drawn up by a court-appointed special master until regular redistricting is scheduled to be done in 2030. The decision, which enabled Democrats to gain a seat in the last election, comes as both parties gear up for competing redistricting efforts in response to a move by Texas to redraw boundaries to improve the chances that Republicans will pick up five additional seats. The court in Alabama barred the state from using a map drawn in 2023 that did not include a second Black-majority district in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling.
Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
Stanford Daily sues Trump administration, citing threats to free speech
Stanford University's student newspaper is suing the Trump administration, claiming the threat to deport foreign students for speaking out against Israel's handling of the war in Gaza is chilling free speech. That threat is hampering the paper's ability to cover campus demonstrations and to get protesters to speak on the record, according to a lawsuit filed on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Northern California. Some Stanford Daily writers, who are foreigners in the country on student visas, have even turned down assignments to write about unrest in the Middle East because they're afraid they'll be deported. Writers have also asked the paper to remove previously published stories from its website, citing the same concerns, the lawsuit claims. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' the newspaper's lawyers wrote in their complaint. The suit accuses Trump administration officials, specifically Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristin Noem, of placing their statutory authority to deport a foreign visa holder whose beliefs they deem un-American ahead of the constitutional right — guaranteed by the First Amendment— to free speech. 'When a federal statute collides with First Amendment rights,' the newspaper's lawyers wrote, 'the Constitution prevails.' Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, scoffed at the lawsuit, calling it, 'baseless.' 'There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here,' she said in a statement. The lawsuit — which was filed by the 133-year old student newspaper, not by the university itself — is the most recent salvo in an increasingly bitter fight between Trump and many of the nation's elite universities. The president has made clear he sees top schools as hotbeds of liberal ideology and breeding grounds for anti-American sentiment. His weapon of choice is to threaten to withhold billions of dollars in federal research grants from institutions that refuse to adopt policies on issues like diversity, transgender rights and Israel that fall in line with his Make America Great Again ideology. Critics call Trump's campaign an attack on academic freedom, but fearing massive budget cuts, several Ivy League schools – including the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia and Brown – have recently cut deals with the Trump administration in an attempt to limit the damage. Stanford announced this week that it will be forced to lay off hundreds of employees as a result of cuts to research funding and changes to federal tax laws. The Stanford Daily's lawsuit focuses on two unnamed students, John and Jane Doe, who the paper's lawyers say began self-censoring out of a well-founded fear of having their visas revoked and being deported. Rubio has claimed that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows the secretary of state to revoke a noncitizen's legal status if it is decided the person's actions or statements 'compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' Rubio used that interpretation to justify the March arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was held in a Louisiana jail before a federal judge ordered his release. The complaint cites the cases of two other foreign students — one at Columbia and one at Tufts — who were arrested for participating in pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations. At Stanford, the plaintiff referred to as Jane Doe, was a member of the group Students for Justice in Palestine. She has published online commentary accusing Israel of committing genocide and perpetuating apartheid, according to the lawsuit. She has also used the slogan, 'from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free', which has become a flashpoint in the Israel-Gaza debate. Referencing the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — which includes Israel, The West Bank and the Gaza Strip — the slogan is viewed as a call for freedom and self-determination by Palestinians. To many Israelis, it sounds like a call for their total destruction. As a result, Doe's profile appeared on the Canary Mission, a pro-Israel website that creators say is devoted to outing 'hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews.' Department of Homeland Security officials have acknowledged they consult the website's profiles — most of which are of students and faculty at elite universities — for information on people worthy of investigation. As a result, since March, Jane Doe has deleted her social media accounts and has 'refrained from publishing and voicing her true opinions regarding Palestine and Israel,' the lawsuit claims. John Doe has participated in pro-Palestine demonstrations, has accused Israel of genocide and chanted, 'from the river to the sea'. But after the Trump administration started targeting campus demonstrators for deportation, he 'refrained from publishing a study containing criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza,' according to the lawsuit. Unlike Jane Doe, John has since resumed public criticism of Israel, despite the threat of deportation, according to the lawsuit.
