Latest news with #BillOfRights
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Asks Supreme Court To Bless Racial Profiling by Immigration Agents
Normally, when the federal government is credibly accused of violating the Bill of Rights, a government lawyer will tell a federal judge that the alleged misconduct never happened. No way, your honor, the lawyer will protest. No agent of this government ever did anything like that! But Noem v. Perdomo is not a normal case. Instead of disavowing the apparently unconstitutional behavior at its core, the Trump administration is openly embracing that behavior and urging the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to do the same. It is the rare case in which both the government and its opponents agree that federal agents behaved in a specific way; the two sides only disagree about whether the specific behavior should count as good or bad. The specific behavior at issue here is racial profiling. Multiple U.S. citizens have alleged that they were illegally seized by federal immigration agents in Los Angeles based solely on unlawful factors such as their "apparent race or ethnicity," or the fact that they were "speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent." And because these citizens (and others) "are likely to succeed in showing" that they were unlawfully seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled earlier this month, the Trump administration has been temporarily blocked from employing such tactics as part of its immigration crackdown in the greater Los Angeles area. In response, the Trump administration is now asking the Supreme Court to lift the block and let the roundups begin again. And in its latest legal filing, the administration made no efforts to deny that its agents will be relying on racial profiling when they're back in the field. Indeed, according to the emergency application to SCOTUS signed by Solicitor General John Sauer, "apparent ethnicity can be a factor supporting reasonable suspicion in appropriate circumstances." Translation: If a federal agent thinks that someone "looks illegal," the agent should be free to seize that person based only on his "apparent ethnicity" without setting off any sort of Fourth Amendment alarm bells. Furthermore, in response to the argument that the federal government's alleged racial profiling has resulted in an overly broad dragnet that inevitably ensnares innocent U.S. citizens, the Trump administration told the Supreme Court that "the high prevalence of illegal aliens should enable agents to stop a relatively broad range of individuals." Take a moment to let that sink in. The Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to give its blessing to a kind of systematic racial profiling that involves federal agents stopping a "broad range of individuals" based exclusively on factors such as the individuals' "apparent ethnicity." And if the rights of U.S. citizens—such as the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures regardless of your skin color—happen to get trampled along the way, the Trump administration's message to those victimized citizens is this: tough luck. To say the least, the Supreme Court has ample legal reasons to rule against the Trump administration's admitted racial profiling on Fourth Amendment grounds. But will the Court rule that way? Alas, the answer to that question is not so clear. While the current Supreme Court has been a Fourth Amendment defender in some cases, the Court has also been known to tip the scales in favor of law enforcement in others, including even in cases in which it was quite clear that federal agents violated someone's constitutional rights. So, the outcome of this case will likely turn on just how much deference the Supreme Court chooses to extend to Trump's immigration agenda. For better or worse, we will learn the extent of that deference soon enough. The post Trump Asks Supreme Court To Bless Racial Profiling by Immigration Agents appeared first on
Bloomberg
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Hong Kong Court Orders Nulling Laws on Sex-Segregated Toilets
A Hong Kong court has ordered the striking down of regulations banning individuals from using public toilets designated for the opposite sex, in a ruling expected to improve treatment of transgender people. The regulations violate Hong Kong's constitution-like Basic Law and its Bill of Rights by creating a disproportionate and unnecessary intrusion into the privacy and rights of transgender people, the ruling said. It highlighted the distress and practical challenges that transgender people experience when using facilities designated for a gender that did not align with their own identity. The court will suspend the judgment for a year to allow the government time to address the issue.
New York Times
04-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Making the Bill of Rights Relevant to Young Readers
REBELS, ROBBERS AND RADICALS: The Story of the Bill of Rights, by Teri Kanefield; illustrated by Kelly Malka Nearly daily, the front page of The New York Times is filled with the clash between an expansive executive branch and the responses of an embattled judiciary. Yet for many young people the most compelling current events are the swells and trends of the digital world. In 'Rebels, Robbers and Radicals: The Story of the Bill of Rights,' Teri Kanefield sets out to reveal to those screenagers the architecture of laws and beliefs that undergirds this nation. Can she engage her readers and prove that a 234-year-old document matters to them? Yes. Kanefield is a lawyer and an accomplished children's nonfiction author. When her editor suggested a book on the Bill of Rights she found the prospect daunting, until she 'hit on the idea of presenting the material the way the law is presented to law students — through actual court cases.' For each of the 10 amendments, she shares individuals' personal stories and legal conflicts, and shows how they shape or reflect the terms and principles of the amendment. Kanefield recognizes the 'paradox of liberty,' quoting the Lyndon B. Johnson-era assistant attorney general Roger Wilkins on framers who 'celebrated freedom while stealing the substance of life from the people they 'owned.'' Her book looks at the Bill of Rights in the context of real people with complex motives in challenging times. The Bill of Rights was created to address the founders' determination to restrain the reach and power of a central government, as well as states' rights advocates' demand that such a bill apply only to federal law — leaving states 'free to enact any laws they pleased, including laws that allowed enslavement.' Why is it, then, that the rights enshrined in the bill are applied so broadly today? Kanefield describes the shift, after the Civil War, when the expansive 14th Amendment was ratified, guaranteeing 'equal protection of the laws' throughout the country. As she demonstrates, this incorporation of the original bill into a national framework was truly a 'second founding' of the nation. From high-concept legal theory, Kanefield moves quickly to the amendments. She approaches the First Amendment and free speech through the Peter Zenger case in colonial New York — when British libel law did not allow truth as a defense. Just as a manager will be thrown out of a baseball game for arguing balls and strikes even if the umpire is indeed blind, Zenger was on trial in 1735 for defaming a corrupt official by printing a newspaper article that said he was corrupt. The local jury ignored the law and took his side — as does the later ratified First Amendment. What, then, are the limits on speech? Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Zawya
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Zawya
South Africa: Can citizens take action against the state to maintain critical infrastructure?
We see more and more critical infrastructure failures and deterioration, both within local and metropolitan municipalities. Raw sewerage in the streets is a common sight, potholes prevail, and stormwater drainage fails repeatedly. It is commonplace that despite residents paying rates and making multiple complaints to authorities, the situation does not improve. Citizens have various constitutional rights, including the freedom of movement and access to essential services, as well as to approach a court when a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed. Can citizens or local resident associations take the local or national government to court to obtain court orders compelling them to effectively deal with the situation? This question came before the High Court in Umtata in a judgment handed down earlier this month.1 A local residents' association brought an application against the Department of Transport, directing them to repair the surface and undertake all the necessary work to restore a main road to good condition. The court accepted that the resident association had legal standing to bring the application. The applicant put up extensive evidence of complaints being lodged with councillors and the local municipality, with no tangible results. The court considered the effect of the inaccessible road on the applicants' daily lives, their ability to shop, access to banking services and get to work, learners' ability to get to school, access to medical facilities as well as the impact of poorly positioned drainage pipes causing flooding and an additional slippery road surface causing danger. The respondents argued that they had a significant scope of responsibility and that the maintenance costs of a paved road network was approximately R1.8m per kilometre. given their budget limitations annually, the department had to engage with municipalities to prioritise road maintenance based on the needs of each respective community. The department had to acknowledge the need for road upgrades that the applicants had requested and contended that considerable progress had been made with the budget approved and contractors appointed. The court accepted that it was the respondents' responsibility and constitutional role, and accepted, although the municipalities had an interest in the matter, it was not required for the municipalities to be joined to the proceedings. The court accepted that the applicants had clearly demonstrated their rights were being infringed upon, as well as the deplorable state of the road, and that they had no other remedy available. The court issued an order that the department was directed to repair, resurface and restore the main road within 120 days of the date of the order, and ordered that the respondents pay the cost of the application. Conclusion: This case serves as a reminder that the courts will intervene where the state fails to discharge its constitutional obligations and where citizens or local associations can show extensive complaints and requests for assistance which have remained unanswered. It is not sufficient for the State to point to budget limitations as an exclusive answer to its failure to implement important and necessary infrastructural maintenance or upgrades. Citizens can be confident in taking a more active approach to holding local and national governments responsible for fulfilling their constitutional mandates to effect repairs to ageing and failing infrastructure.
Mail & Guardian
17-06-2025
- Health
- Mail & Guardian
Toxic pesticide ban a victory for people and environmental justice, say activists
The ban on the importation and use of Terbufos signals a shift toward safer, people-centred agriculture Civil society groups have welcomed the cabinet's In October last year, Commonly known as Halephirimi, Last Thursday, the The committee said the department of agriculture would lead the consultation process on the ban in line with its 2010 plan to eradicate poisonous insecticides and pesticides over a period of time and also work on identifying safer alternatives to Terbufos. The banning of Terbufos signals the beginning of the transformation of an agriculture system that is 'riven with conflict of interest, inequity, abuse of worker rights and the unchallenged hegemony of toxic chemicals,' the South African People's Tribunal on AgroToxins (SAPToA) said. 'We will now likely see the deaths of children from this poison decline rapidly just as we saw with Aldicarb was prohibited in 2016. Swanby pointed out that not only do children die from organophosphates such as Terbufos but those who survive live with a lifetime of health and neurological problems. The law governing the registration of pesticides is ancient, she noted. 'It goes back to the post-war era where these chemicals that were used in the war were being repurposed for agriculture and we know a lot more about them now than we did back then, and of course this was also the apartheid era.' With the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the pesticide registration in the country is 'incongruent with our current law', she said. 'That needs a complete overhaul and as it stands now, it suits industry but that has to really be changed as soon as possible if we want to stay safe.' Mechanisms for phasing out pesticides must be included in that law 'so it's not just automatically if you come with your pesticide and you can tick a few boxes, you automatically get registration'. 'The first port of call is to see how we phase out pesticides and how we think about the risks and benefits and what the trajectory of our agricultural production should look like in this new era with our Bill of Rights and our Constitution,' Swanby said. SAPToA noted that despite a government policy adopted in 2010 to phase out highly hazardous pesticides and a regulation being issued in 2023 to restrict Terbufos, 'business continued as usual for the chemical industry who, in the week before the Naledi children died, were still insisting they have more time to prepare for any regulations'. 'For industry, the death of our children due to their products is not an urgent matter. This cabinet decision, recognising our constitutional imperative to put the child's best interests first, marks the end of a long era where the chemical industry has undue influence over the regulation of their deadly products. 'The highest level of government has reined in corporate impunity and said that all South Africans, particularly children, have the right to a safe and healthy environment.' SAPToA said civil society would continue to push for the immediate ban of all 194 highly hazardous pesticides registered in South Africa and to reject the notion of phase-out periods subject to industry discretion, which is a 'fig leaf for industry delay and prevarication'. It is also calling for transparency in governance of agricultural toxins, beginning with making available a public database of all pesticides registered in the country as a constitutional right for all South Africans. The Human Rights Commission said the cabinet's decision to ban Terbufos is a milestone in the realisation of critical socio-economic rights, including the right to health, clean water, a safe environment and adequate food. 'It reflects an emerging shift towards a people-centred food system, where communities are empowered to determine their own approaches to production, markets, ecology, and culture, aligned with principles of social, economic, and environmental justice.'
