Latest news with #13thAmendment
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Harvard agrees to transfer photos of enslaved people to black history museum
Harvard University has agreed to hand over a set of historic photos believed to be among the earliest depicting enslaved people in the United States. The agreement ends a long legal battle between the institution and Tamara Lanier, an author from Connecticut who argues she is a descendant of two people shown in the photos. The images, taken in 1850, will be transferred to the International African American Museum in South Carolina, where the people shown in the photos were enslaved. Harvard said it had always hoped the photos would be given to another museum. Ms Lanier said she was "ecstatic" with the result. The images are daguerreotypes, a very early form of modern-day photographs and were taken 15 years before the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution abolished slavery. The photos were rediscovered in storage at Harvard's Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology in 1976. The 15 images feature people identified by the Peabody Museum as Alfred, Delia, Drana, Fassena, Jack, Jem, and Renty. According to Ms Lanier, the settlement would mean the transfer of all the images not just the ones about Renty and Delia. The photos were commissioned by Harvard professor and zoologist Louis Agassizm as part of discredited research to prove the superiority of white people. He espoused polygenism, a now debunked belief that human races evolved separately. The case formed part of public debate around how America's universities should respond to their historic links to slavery. In 2016, Harvard Law School agreed to change a shield that was based on the crest of an 18th Century slaveholder. Harvard did not comment on the details of the settlement but a university spokesperson said it "has long been eager to place the Zealy Daguerreotypes with another museum or other public institution to put them in the appropriate context and increase access to them for all Americans." The spokesperson added that Ms Lanier's "claim to ownership of the daguerreotypes created a complex situation, especially because Harvard has not been able to confirm that Ms Lanier is related to the individuals in the daguerreotypes." Ms Lanier sued Harvard in 2019, arguing the images were taken without consent and accusing the university of profiting from them through large licensing fees. In 2022, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld an earlier ruling that dismissed Ms Lanier's claim to ownership. She was, however, allowed to claim damages for emotional distress. It ruled Harvard had "complicity" in the "horrific actions" surrounding the creation of the images. "Harvard's present obligations cannot be divorced from its past abuses," it added. Ms Lanier told the BBC, she was "ecstatic" about the settlement. "I have always known first of all that I could never care for the daguerreotypes at the level they would require," she said. "There are so many ties that bind Renty and Delia and the other enslaved people to that particular part of South Carolina that to repatriate them there would be like a homecoming ceremony." The South Carolina museum helped Ms Lanier with her genealogy claims but was not involved in the legal battle. Its president said they intend to hold and display the images "in context with truth and empathy." "These are not gentle images and the story behind how they came to be is even more difficult to hear," Tonya Matthews told the BBC. "So to be in a space that has already created room for conversations about the inhumanity of slavery and enslavement and how far those implications echo even to today is what we do and it's our mission." Harvard sued over 'slave ancestor' photos The awkward questions about slavery from US tourists The hidden links between slavery and Wall Street
Epoch Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Trump Weighs In on Supreme Court Case Involving Birthright Citizenship
President Donald Trump on Thursday morning weighed in on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing arguments in a case involving his order to limit birthright citizenship, arguing that the current law is being exploited. Earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order to limit birthright citizenship, which was halted by several federal judges. The case is now in the hands of the Supreme Court after the administration submitted an emergency appeal to the highest court. 'Big case today in the United States Supreme Court. Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the 'SUCKERS' that we are!' Trump He said the United States 'is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows—But the drug cartels love it!' Going further, Trump said that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 and three years after the end of the Civil War, was designed to provide citizenship to children born to enslaved people. 'Remember, it all started right after the Civil War ended, it had nothing to do with current day Immigration Policy!' Trump wrote. Related Stories 5/15/2025 5/15/2025 The first sentence of the Constitution's 14th Amendment reads: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' It and the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery except as punishment for a crime, were ratified about a decade after the Supreme Court's Dred Scott On his first day in office, Trump 'The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' the White House said. Birthright citizenship is among several issues, many related to immigration, that the administration has asked the court to address on an emergency basis, after lower courts' rulings hampered the president's agenda. In Thursday's arguments, the nine justices will be weighing whether judges have the authority to issue what are called nationwide, or universal, injunctions. The Trump administration, like the Biden administration before it, has said that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. The administration is asking for the court orders to be reined in, not overturned entirely, and spends little time defending its executive order on birthright citizenship. The Justice Department points out that there has been an 'explosion' in the number of nationwide injunctions issued since Trump retook the White House. The far-reaching court orders violate the law as well as long-standing views on a judge's authority, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on behalf of the administration in its petition. One of the judges who ruled against the administration, Judge Danielle Forrest of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote in February that the government has not been able to argue that the current circumstances 'demonstrate an obvious emergency' to issue the order. A separate ruling issued by the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also blocked Trump's order. 'The Government expressly declines to make any developed argument that it is likely to succeed on appeal in showing that the Executive Order is either constitutional or compliant with' federal law, the court The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump doesn't understand how the Constitution works
The U.S. Constitution is not a suggestion. It is the most sacred document in our country's history. Under the government it created, 12,583 people have served in Congress, 116 justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court's bench and 45 presidents have led the executive branch. Now one of those presidents is seeking to undermine it. Whether Donald Trump is deporting legal residents in defiance of the courts, freezing federal grants in defiance of Congress, attempting to unilaterally dismantle its amendments, or calling for its termination altogether, the current president seems to think he rules the Constitution, and not the other way around. The latest case involves a 20-year-old Venezuelan identified in court papers only as Cristian, who was flown to El Salvador in March despite an earlier court order barring him from being deported. The president is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not undermine it. He can't even change it if he wants, as the president has no specific constitutional role in the process for amending the Constitution. Article V outlines two methods, both of which have a high bar. Under the first, a proposal passed by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate is then ratified by two-thirds of state legislatures. In the second, two-thirds of state legislatures can call for a new constitutional convention — something that has never happened in our history. In neither case is the president even consulted. This is why our government has endured for more than two centuries. The founders designed it to be impervious to the whims of one man, but flexible enough to adapt with the times. I'm concerned that some Americans think Trump's word alone can rewrite our supreme governing document. That is not the case, nor should it be — no matter what Trump and his allies tell you. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is rightly studied in schools to this day. But his words aren't what abolished slavery. The 13th Amendment did that. The Seneca Falls Convention was monumental. But that's not what ensured that millions of women could cast a ballot in the last election. The 19th Amendment did that. And it's not Donald Trump's or DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's words that determine who is entitled to due process under the law. Those are the Fifth and 14th Amendments. The United States Constitution is not a gaudy skyscraper on Fifth Avenue, with the name "TRUMP" in gold letters. Quite the opposite: It says 'WE THE PEOPLE.' This is the moment we the people must stand up. If the rest of Trump's term continues on this path, the document he swore twice to protect and defend will be nothing more than faded paper and the 27 amendments forged over centuries to protect us will fade right along with it. For more thought-provoking insights from Michael Steele, Alicia Menendez and Symone Sanders-Townsend, watch 'The Weeknight' every Monday-Friday at 7 p.m. ET starting May 5th on MSNBC. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - America's federal constitutional rights need a major fix
There is an inequity in the enforcement of individual federal constitutional rights in the U.S. that should be rectified. If a person's constitutional rights are violated by local or state government actors, a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. 1983, allows them to sue to recover damages for the harm suffered. However, there is no analogous federal statute providing damages against federal actors who violate their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has made clear in a series of decisions that, absent such a statute, there is no recourse to recover damages against federal actors, no matter how serious the violation of federal constitutional rights. The resulting inequity is stark: People whose federal constitutional rights are violated by government actors have much more robust judicial remedies against local and state government actors than they have against federal government actors. This inequity is rooted in the federal government's efforts to address the adverse legal effects of slavery during the Reconstruction period. Within six years after the Civil War ended in 1865, three important amendments to the U.S. Constitution were ratified — to abolish slavery (13th Amendment), to guarantee formerly enslaved persons both due process and equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment) and to provide the right to vote to formerly enslaved men (15th Amendment). In 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983 was also enacted, creating a claim in court allowing a person whose federal constitutional rights are violated by state or local government actors to sue them for damages. This new federal statute was focused on local and state government actors who violate federal constitutional rights, rather than federal government actors, because it was state and local governments who had previously enforced slavery in the South, and who were still violating the newly established constitutional rights of the formerly enslaved persons. In the Reconstruction period, the former Confederate states and their local governments resisted legal equality for the newly freed persons, while the federal government was considered to be the creator and enforcer of the new constitutional rights for these same persons. After the Reconstruction Period, we have learned that federal governmental actors can and do violate the federal constitutional rights of Americans. For example, it is now well known that J. Edgar Hoover's Federal Bureau of Investigation violated the federal constitutional rights of some Americans in exercising its law enforcement functions, including its efforts to disrupt the civil rights advocacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In the current period, President Donald Trump's executive orders and policies have generated an unprecedented volume of litigation asserting that federal actors have violated the federal constitutional rights of many Americans. Current and former federal employees, immigrants who are lawful residents of the country, universities and their students and lawyers and their law firms are asserting in American courts that their federal constitutional rights have been violated by the enforcement of these presidential orders and policies. However, even if such violations are proven, the courts cannot award damages (with a few limited exceptions) against the federal government actors who commit them. Simple justice demands that any person whose constitutional rights are violated by government actors should be able to recover damages for the harm they suffer, regardless of whether the government actors are federal, local or state. Individual constitutional rights are diminished if violations of them cannot be fully vindicated in American courts. The solution to the current inequity is straightforward. A federal law should be enacted or 42 U.S.C. 1983 should be amended to create a right for every person whose federal constitutional rights are violated by federal actors to recover damages for the harm that they suffer. If such a law were enacted, then all Americans whose federal constitutional rights are violated by government actors would have the same judicial remedies available to them to vindicate the violation of these important rights. Henry Rose is the Curt and Linda Rodin Professor of Law and Social Justice at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Reuters
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Lawsuit alleging racism in Louisiana's 'Cancer Alley' revived on appeal
April 10 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court has revived a civil rights lawsuit which alleges a south Louisiana parish engaged in discriminatory land-use practices that placed polluting industries in majority-Black communities on a stretch of land nicknamed "Cancer Alley." A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday held, opens new tab that a trial court judge was wrong to toss the case by three faith-based community groups in St. James Parish on grounds that it had not been brought in time. "Now we can finally get back to the urgent work of addressing the public health emergency caused by the parish's constant and easy approval of every request by any petrochemical company seeking to operate in these majority-Black communities," Pam Spees, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said in a statement. A lawyer for the parish did not respond to a request for comment. The groups – Inclusive Louisiana, Mt. Triumph Baptist Church and RISE St. James – sued in 2023, alleging that the disproportionate placement of petrochemical plants in majority Black areas violates the U.S. Constitution's 13th Amendment as a vestige of slavery and their equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment. The lawsuit said no major polluting facilities have been approved by the council in white communities in the parish in 46 years, while dozens of 'dangerous and extractive facilities' have been located in Black communities. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier had tossed those and other claims on grounds that the plaintiffs had sued too late over a land use plan the parish adopted in 2014 which categorized two heavily populated districts as "industrial," allowing plants to be built there. However, U.S. Circuit Judge Carl Stewart, writing for Wednesday's panel, said that the lawsuit was not challenging a discreet government action a decade ago but rather a longstanding pattern and practice of racially discriminatory land use decisions. Stewart, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, pointed to allegations that fell within the statute of limitations period which were not time-barred concerning actions the parish took in August 2022. At that time, the organizations alleged in their 2023 lawsuit, the parish declined to issue a moratorium on "polluting industry" in majority-Black communities while granting white residents' request for a moratorium on the solar industry. "While it is unclear at this pleading stage whether these alleged incidents of discrimination can ultimately prove a violation of the Organizations' constitutional or statutory rights, as alleged they plainly fall within the applicable one-year limitations period," Stewart wrote. He said the trial judge had also wrongly concluded that the groups lacked standing to pursue claims their religious rights were violated, saying they had raised sufficient allegations that the parish's land use practices restricted their access to the cemeteries of their enslaved ancestors. His opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Catharina Haynes, an appointee of Republican President George H.W. Bush, and Patrick Higginbotham, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan. The case is Inclusive Louisiana v. St. James Parrish, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-30908. For the plaintiffs: Pam Spees of Center for Constitutional Rights
