Rev. Al Sharpton to address DOJ during keynote address at Rainbow PUSH Coalition People's Conference
Rev. Al Sharpton will be keynote speaker at Rainbow PUSH's People's Conference
Rev. Al Sharpton will be keynote speaker at Rainbow PUSH's People's Conference
Rev. Al Sharpton plans to slam the Department of Justice for its scrutiny of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson when he gives the keynote address at the Rainbow PUSH Coalition People's Conference on Thursday.
Sharpton, who has worked in partnership with PUSH founder Rev. Jesse Jackson for over 50 years, will speak about the department's investigation of Chicago hiring practices.
Johnson said his administration reflects the diversity of the city.
The conference's theme is "A Call to Action." It's meant to underscore the need for resistance against threats to civil rights.
Rainbow Push also plans to rally outside Target's downtown location on Thursday afternoon after the company reversed its DEI initiatives. That rally is scheduled for 3 p.m. at the store on State and Madison.
Target pulled back on its programs after pressure from the Trump Administration.
Rainbow PUSH says the rally is meant to draw attention to corporations that don't value black customers and aren't committed to social equity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
11 minutes ago
- CNN
How a unique California law puts the Menendez brothers' fate into the hands of one politician
After serving several decades in prison, Erik and Lyle Menendez are facing the possibility of freedom as the California Board of Parole Hearings this week considers whether they've adequately atoned for the 1989 murder of their parents. While this may seem like the final moment in the long and captivating saga, refueled by several attempts by the brothers' lawyers and the former district attorney to achieve what they say is a more modern version of justice, the brothers have one more potential roadblock – California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor holds an unusual power that allows him to 'affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider' for someone convicted of murder and sentenced to an indeterminate term, according to state law. While the governor is required to follow certain parameters, he is given broad oversight on the decision. The little-known and rare ability, established in the 1980s, looms large over the brothers as they prepare to explain to a parole panel why they should be released. It's not clear how Newsom is leaning, and his office did not answer a question from CNN about his potential decision, but here's what we know about the power that gives him ultimate authority to decide on the brothers' freedom. The governor's ability to veto the parole board's decision dates to the 1980s, when public reaction toward a now-forgotten case grabbed headlines – as well as the attention of voters. William Archie Fain, convicted of the 1967 killing of a teenage boy and rape of two teenage girls, was released on parole in 1983 to much outrage from the public, according to the Los Angeles Times. After getting parole, he continued to be accused and found guilty of other crimes, ranging from assault to peeping. Then-Gov. George Deukmejian tried to prevent his release, but state courts ruled Fain had to be freed. In response, the California legislature passed Proposition 89, which gave voters the option to allow the governor power to modify the parole board's decision. While there were concerns it would unjustly give a politician too much power, many were more worried about the potential for violence during a tough-on-crime era. 'Proposition 89 will not politicize the parole process, but it will provide an extra measure of safety to law-abiding citizens by giving the Governor the authority to block the parole of criminals who still pose a significant threat to society,' Deukmejian and a state senator wrote in a 1988 voter information guide arguing for the proposition. 'Prop 89 will correct a weakness in the state's parole system and further strengthen California's system of justice.' The proposition ended up passing with 55% of the vote, according to the UC Law San Francisco Repository. The only other state that gives its governor the power to veto parole grants is Oklahoma, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. The proposition does limit the window of reversal to 30 days, meaning if the parole board votes to release the brothers, Newsom has 30 days from when the decision is released to change it. Since the proposition's passing, the power bestowed on the California governor has been curbed slightly by court rulings over the past two decades, said Christopher Hawthorne, clinical professor of law and director of the Juvenile Innocence & Fair Sentencing Clinic at Loyola Law School. In one, the California Supreme Court ruled the governor must reasonably assess the defendant's risk against public safety, Hawthorne said. Another ruling several years later allowed the governor to consider whether the defendant had insight into their crime, he added. While the power has been modified, the governor still has room to a make a decision in the Menendez case as long as it follows these guidelines. Since the proposition was added to the California state constitution, governors have often used it to deny parole in cases during the 1990s and early 2000s, when tough-on-crime policies were more popular, according to Hawthorne. 'In the mid-'80s, California passed law after law after law, frequently by initiative, that made it much harder to get anyone out of prison. And that flow only reversed in about 2012 or 2013 when Gov. (Jerry) Brown was in office,' he said. 'For a long, long time, it was almost impossible to get parole, get found suitable for parole, and if you did get found suitable, the governor reversed a lot of parole grants at that time.' Hawthorne cited the case of Leslie Van Houten, a former Charles Manson follower and convicted murderer, as an illustration of when governors repeatedly denied parole despite the board approving it. Newsom also denied parole for Sirhan Sirhan, who assassinated US Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, with the governor citing Sirhan's 'refusal to accept responsibility for his crime' and 'lack of insight and accountability,' among other reasons. 'He does not understand, let alone have the skills to manage, the complex risks of his self-created notoriety. He cannot be safely released from prison because he has not mitigated his risk of fomenting further political violence,' Newsom wrote in a 2022 Los Angeles Times op-ed explaining his decision. 'Every governor is fairly allergic to releasing high-profile defendants,' Hawthorne said, though 'California has done really well in the last 10 years or so' in increasing the availability of parole overall. 'It was something that was not available, essentially, during the (Pete) Wilson, (Gray) Davis or (Arnold) Schwarzenegger administration, with very, very few exceptions,' he said. The three governors served successively from 1991, but starting in 2011, 'Jerry Brown's administration and Gavin Newsom's administration have done infinitely better,' he said. While the Menendez brothers have some elements working in their favor, such as family and public support, as well as encouraging recommendations from prison and corrections officials, some have passionately argued against their release. Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman hotly contested their potential resentencing earlier this year, despite his predecessor, George Gascón, requesting it. The previous district attorney, Hochman said in a statement, 'did not examine or consider whether the Menendez brothers have exhibited full insight and taken complete responsibility for their crimes.' His statement also cites the two points Newsom can consider in a potential reversal of a parole board decision. To help make his case, Hochman created a chart comparing factors considered by the parole board for Sirhan and each Menendez brother. Some of the factors include time served in prison, their education level before and during incarceration, and the gravity of the offense. Since Newsom denied Sirhan's parole based on the factors laid out in the chart, Hochman argued, the Menendez brothers definitely don't qualify for release as the they have more prison rules violations and haven't exhibited full insight into their crimes. Hochman has said the brothers lied when they claimed the motive for killing their parents was due to abuse they faced from their father. He has previously said he believes evidence to corroborate the abuse allegations is 'extremely lacking;' earlier this year he said his review of the case showed the killings were premeditated and not the result of a threat from their parents. Although a judge ultimately ruled to resentence the brothers earlier this year – which is why they now have a parole hearing – the positions taken by Hochman's office could still factor into the governor's decision on parole. The situation is definitely a 'political hot potato,' Hawthorne said, though the overwhelming support for release from family members could heavily weigh the decision. More than 20 Menendez relatives have banded together over the past year to advocate for release, saying they believe the brothers' abuse claims and that society's understanding of childhood sexual abuse has changed dramatically since their conviction in 1996. They also say the brothers have grown and tried to help others through rehabilitative programs in prison. Anamaria Baralt, a cousin of the Menendez brothers and leader of the coalition, told reporters last October that 'If Lyle and Erik's case were heard today, with the understanding we now have about abuse and PTSD, there is no doubt in my mind that their sentencing would have been very different.' She also read a statement from Terry Baralt, Jose Menendez's sister: 'I implore the district attorney's office to end our prolonged suffering and release Lyle and Erik back to our family. Thirty-five years is such a long time. My prayer is that I live long enough to see my nephews again and to hug them once more.' Oftentimes, a victim's family opposes release, Hawthorne said, making this a unique situation. 'It's interesting in this case, given that Jose and Kitty Menendez's family are largely in favor of both Eric and Lyle getting out – those voices will matter, and they will be brought to bear in that 30-day window when the governor has the case,' he said. The family will be able to express their opinions to the governor's office through calls, letters and other documents, in an attempt to sway his opinion. 'I can't think of a governor who wouldn't be sensitive to that,' Hawthorne said.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U-turn as Trump administration agrees to keep Washington police chief in place
The Trump administration has reversed course and agreed to leave the Washington DC police chief in control of the department. Meanwhile, attorney general Pam Bondi, in a new memo, directed the district's police to co-operate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law. The order came after officials in the nation's capital sued on Friday to block President Donald Trump's takeover of the capital's police. The night before, his administration had escalated its intervention into the city's law enforcement by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department, essentially placing the police force under full control of the federal government. The attorney general's new order represents a partial retreat for the Trump administration in the face of intense scepticism from a judge over the legality of Ms Bondi's earlier directive, but she also signalled the administration would continue to pressure DC leaders to help federal authorities aggressively pursue immigrants in the country illegally, despite city laws that limit co-operation between police and immigration authorities. In a social media post on Friday evening, Ms Bondi criticised DC attorney general Brian Schwalb, saying he 'continues to oppose our efforts to improve public safety', but she added: 'We remain committed to working closely with Mayor Bowser.' Mayor Muriel Bowser's office said late on Friday that it was still evaluating how it can comply with the new Bondi order on immigration enforcement operations. The police department had already eased some restrictions on co-operating with federal officials facilitating Mr Trump's mass deportation campaign but reaffirmed that it would follow the district's sanctuary city laws. In a letter sent on Friday night to DC citizens, Ms Bowser wrote: 'It has been an unsettling and unprecedented week in our city. Over the course of a week, the surge in federal law enforcement across DC has created waves of anxiety.' She added that 'our limited self-government has never faced the type of test we are facing right now', but added that if Washingtonians stick together, 'we will show the entire nation what it looks like to fight for American democracy – even when we don't have full access to it'. The legal battle was the latest evidence of the escalating tensions in a mostly Democratic city that now has its police department largely under the control of the Republican president's administration. Mr Trump's takeover is historic, yet it had played out with a slow ramp-up in federal law enforcement officials and National Guard troops to start the week. As the weekend approached, signs across the city — from the streets to the legal system — suggested a deepening crisis over who controls the city's immigration and policing policies, the district's right to govern itself and daily life for the millions of people who live and work in the metro area. The two sides sparred in court for hours Friday before US District Judge Ana Reyes, who is overseeing the district's lawsuit. She indicated the law is not likely to grant the Trump administration power to fully take over city police, but it probably gives the president more power than the city might like. 'The way I read the statute, the president can ask, the mayor must provide, but the president can't control,' said Judge Reyes, who was nominated to the bench by Joe Biden. The judge pushed the two sides to make a compromise. A lawyer for the Trump administration, Yaakov Roth, said the move to sideline Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith came after an immigration order that still held back some aid to federal authorities. He argued that the president has broad authority to determine what kind of help police in Washington must provide. The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally. It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city's homicide rate ranks below those of several other major US cities, and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the Trump administration has portrayed. The president has more power over the nation's capital than other cities, but DC has elected its own mayor and city council since the Home Rule Act was signed in 1973. Mr Trump is the first president to exert control over the city's police force since it was passed. The law limits that control to 30 days without congressional approval, though Mr Trump has suggested he would seek to extend it. Ms Bondi's Thursday night directive to place the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Terry Cole, in charge of the police department came after Ms Smith had told officers to share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody, such as someone involved in a traffic stop. The Justice Department said Ms Bondi disagreed with the police chief's instructions because they allowed for continued practice of 'sanctuary policies', which generally limit co-operation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers.
CNN
40 minutes ago
- CNN
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
ImmigrationFacebookTweetLink Follow A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. US District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone,' Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the US government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long US Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
