Latest news with #Chemerinsky
The Herald Scotland
26-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Trump's big, beautiful, court-defying bill needs Senate help
Trump's Republican allies in Congress are trying to help him hobble those judges, slipping into the oxymoronically named "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" that passed in the U.S. House on May 22 a short provision that would hamper judges from enforcing "contempt citations for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining orders." Those are exactly the type of recent rulings that have so enraged Trump. And the bill doesn't just stymy judges going forward. It would apply retroactively to rulings already in place. Republicans want to make it harder to challenge Trump The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed in the House by the narrowest of margins and now goes to the U.S. Senate, is a budget package that offers tax cuts for the wealthy while ending Medicaid health insurance coverage for millions of low-income Americans and driving the country deeper into debt. One paragraph, on pages 562 and 563 of the 1,116-page bill, raised alarms for reasons that have nothing to do with America's budget or safety-net programs or debt. That paragraph invokes a federal rule for civil court procedures, requiring anyone seeking an injunction or temporary restraining order to block an action by the Trump administration to post a financial bond. Opinion: I asked Team Trump why they now hate a 'woke' bill he himself signed into law Want to challenge Trump? Pay up, the provision said in a way that could make it financially prohibitive for Americans to contest Trump's actions in court. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, called that "unprecedented." "The greatest impact will be in preventing enforcement of all existing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions if a bond has not been posted -- and rarely were there bonds required," Chemerinsky wrote me in an email. The many components of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act have received great scrutiny, but the restriction on legal challenges has received less. Opinion newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter on people, power and policies in the time of Trump from columnist Chris Brennan. Get it delivered to your inbox. "I think it has not received much attention because it is a provision of a large budget bill and because the implications are not obvious," Chemerinsky wrote. "But it will make most existing court orders unenforceable." Vice President JD Vance knows better, but that's not stopping him Trump isn't alone in raging against federal judges who insist that his administration follow the law. That disdain for judicial oversight trickles down through the ranks. Vice President JD Vance, in a May 21 interview with the New York Times, repeatedly said that federal judges should be "deferential" to Trump on matters involving immigration and deportation. And he was clearly offended by recent comments from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who said federal courts should "check the excesses of Congress or the executive." That's our vice president, a Yale Law School graduate, chafing at the American government's system of checks and balances. Opinion: Supreme Court reminds Trump to follow the law, signaling concern that he won't Another Ivy League-trained lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, refused to commit to the Trump administration obeying federal appellate court rulings when he was questioned by a pair of U.S. Supreme Court justices on May 15. "We generally respect circuit precedent, but not necessarily in every case," said Sauer, a Harvard Law School graduate. Dan Bongino, a conspiracist podcaster named by Trump to be the FBI deputy director, used one of his last broadcasts in February to urge his new boss to just ignore federal judges who get in his way. "Who's going to arrest him?" Bongino scoffed on his podcast. "The marshals? You guys know who the U.S. Marshals work for? Department of Justice. That is under the executive branch. Donald Trump's going to order his own arrest? This is ridiculous." Voters don't like what Trump is doing. Republicans don't care. That's the Trump theme running through all this: a taunt, a dare, a defiance of the law. That must certainly appeal to Trump's most fervent supporters, but it's not what the vast majority of Americans want. A Marquette Law School Poll national survey released on May 22 found that 79% of the 1,004 people asked said that Trump should obey federal court orders. And that number increased to 84% when asked about obeying Supreme Court rulings. A survey in April from the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that 69% of the 1,363 people asked said, "The president should follow a Supreme Court ruling, even if the president believes the ruling prevents him from protecting the country from a terrorist attack." Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. The Pew Research Center, in another survey in April, found that "just 14% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats say that if the Supreme Court rules an action by the administration illegal, it does not have to follow the Supreme Court's ruling." Trump doesn't care about following the law, so he isn't likely to care that the American people want him to do exactly that. He's on the hunt for workarounds - legislative escape clauses to help him ignore judges and avoid responsibility. The Senate, now mulling the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, should strike this very ugly provision. They can take a stand for the rule of law and America's system of checks and balances that Republicans in the House tried to discard. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Republicans Give Trump Huge Boost With New Court Rules in Budget Bill
House Republicans passed Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget early Thursday, advancing a reconciliation package to the Senate that had been jammed through committee hearings held largely in the dead of night. But in the process of sneaking the budget to the upper chamber, Republicans tacked on an unexpected and dangerous provision that had nothing to do with Medicaid, overtime tax, or reducing the federal deficit. Instead, they added a detail that would hamper federal courts' ability to 'hold government officials in contempt when they violate court orders,' according to Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. The addendum follows repeat losses for the president in the court system. Since January, the judiciary has been the only branch of government standing in Trump's way when it comes to enacting his executive orders, perhaps most notably on his attempts to end Constitutional rights such as birthright citizenship and habeas corpus. 'Now is not the time to limit the ability of federal courts to enforce their judicial orders,' Chemerinsky implored in a column on JustSecurity earlier this week. A Pew Research Center survey from April indicated that the vast majority of the American public—Republican and Democrat—want the Trump administration to end an action if it's deemed illegal by a federal court. But the provision in the reconciliation bill would make that task all the more difficult by retroactively requiring a 'security'—such as a bond—to be paid by the plaintiff before the order is issued. That detail would effectively render countless court orders across the board to be unenforceable, according to Chemerinsky, since 'federal courts rarely have required plaintiffs to post bonds.' 'Even when the government had been found to violate the Constitution, nothing could be done to enforce the injunctions against it,' Chemerinsky noted. 'In fact, the greatest effect of adopting the provision would be to make countless existing judicial orders unenforceable. If enacted, judges will be able to set the bond at $1 so it can be easily met. But all existing judicial orders where no bond was required would become unenforceable.' The budget passed by just a hair Thursday morning, with two Republicans joining all Democrats in voting against it, and 215 Republicans voting in favor.
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Capitulate or resist? Trump threats spur different responses, and alarm for democracy
Alarmed by President Trump's unprecedented effort to punish law firms he doesn't like, UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky emailed nearly 200 fellow law school deans across the country last month, asking them to join him in condemning the attacks. "The government should not use its enormous power to exact retribution," Chemerinsky wrote. "As legal educators we have a special responsibility to speak out against such reprisals against lawyers." In response, nearly 80 fellow deans signed onto what Chemerinsky viewed as a "straightforward and non-controversial" statement of protest, including those from UCLA Law and other UC law schools. However, more than 100 others — including from prestigious law schools such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford — declined. "A lot of people didn't respond, but certainly some responded and said that they didn't feel comfortable," Chemerinsky said. The response showed that many in academia and the legal field "are being chilled from speaking out" for fear of becoming the president's next target, Chemerinsky said. "If the Trump administration does something that is unconstitutional, who is going to be there to challenge them?" he asked. "It often won't be anyone without law firms." In recent weeks, such concerns about Trump's intimidation tactics have exploded alongside his growing list of perceived enemies and political targets, said Chemerinsky and other critics. The more he goes after those targets, the more Americans who oppose his policies or tactics find themselves falling into separate camps — fiercely divided on how best to respond. Major law firms and universities have negotiated with Trump under duress and acquiesced to his demands, despite those demands representing clear — and arguably illegal — retribution, according to legal experts, leading civil rights organizations, free speech advocates, Democrats in Congress and some judges. The dealmakers have defended their agreements as mutually beneficial, if not necessary to avert financial ruin from Trump's focus on them. There are those who appear to be falling in line, or keeping quiet, and hoping they won't be next to draw the president's ire. Chemerinsky and other leaders in academia and the legal field said they have heard such fear firsthand from colleagues. And then there are the resisters — some who have been targeted and others who just want to stand up for others or their own democratic principles before it is too late. Some of those targeted are suing the administration over its attacks. Others are simply lambasting the administration for assaulting democracy and the rule of law. Still others are taking to the streets in protest, eager to show that communities all across the country are displeased with the Trump administration — and with those institutions they see as capitulating. "I feel like one of the things that's really going to have an impact is protests — and big protests," said Aimee Arost, a 55-year-old real estate agent and self-described "unhappy Democrat" who recently joined hundreds of others outside a Tesla showroom in San Francisco to protest Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, who is a Trump advisor and Tesla's chief executive. In recent days, Arost said she has taken to posting on Facebook whenever she sees an individual or company respond to a threat from Trump, labeling each a "fighter" or a "folder." She said she hoped protests would encourage the folders "to be braver." When late-night host Jimmy Kimmel recently asked Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) whether anything surprises him anymore, Schiff said he was "surprised just how quickly" the Trump administration had "created a climate of fear." "I wouldn't have thought it possible, but by going after universities, they're intimidating other universities. By going after certain press organizations, they're causing others to self-censor. By going after certain law firms, they're causing other lawyers to not want to take cases if they think it will be retaliated against by the administration. Companies [are] towing a Trumpian line because they're worried about losing government contracts," said Schiff, who managed Trump's first impeachment trial and helped investigate Trump's incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Republicans in Congress have shown huge deference to Trump in recent months, and been blasted by their Democratic colleagues for ceding their power over federal purse strings. Rep. Eric Swalwell, an East Bay Democrat and prominent Trump critic, recently told The Times that Republican colleagues have told him they fear physical violence against their families if they speak out against the president. But Chemerinsky said fear of the president is clearly spreading, beyond his own party and those seeking reelection. And with that fear have come stunning deals with the administration, Chemerinsky said. Last month, the Trump administration said it was cutting $400 million in federal funds to Columbia for its "continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students," including by pro-Palestinian protesters on the school's New York campus. Many outside experts and liberal activists balked at the claims, suggesting they were wildly off base and accusing the Trump administration of violating the rights of pro-Palestinian activists instead — including prominent student activist Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder recently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Columbia, however, responded with a letter saying that it would comply with many of the administration's demands, including overhauling its protest and security practices and its Middle Eastern studies department. The university refuted claims it was capitulating, and defended the changes as part of a comprehensive strategy already underway to provide a safe campus environment for everyone "while preserving our commitment to academic freedom and institutional integrity." The university did not respond to a request for comment. Concern also arose after the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison responded to a Trump executive order barring it from government work and threatening the federal contracts of its clients by agreeing to contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Trump has championed and to represent a more politically diverse range of clients. Managing partner Brad Karp, a Democratic donor who backed Trump's opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, reportedly defended the deal in an email to the firm's lawyers as necessary for the firm's financial survival, based on a determination that fighting Trump's order in court "would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the administration." At least three other major firms — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Milbank — have each agreed since to provide $100 million in free services for groups and issues that Trump and the firms said they both support, such as veterans and combating antisemitism; to abandon "illegal DEI" initiatives internally; and to represent politically diverse clients. Firm leaders also have defended the deals as pragmatic and in the best interests of themselves and their clients. The firms did not respond to requests for comment. Read more: Former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff's law firm latest to strike deal with Trump Trump — a convicted felon who has likened himself to a king and suggested he will stay in office beyond the constitutional two-term limit — has defended his attacks on law firms as restoring fairness in the legal field and fighting back against liberal activist firms intent on undermining the conservative will of voters. He has defended his threats against Columbia and other universities as checking liberal bias in academia and defending the rights of Jewish students. Others have denounced his claims and the deals he's struck as deeply dangerous. Democrats in Congress have demanded answers from the White House and the private firms it has struck deals with about the nature of their arrangements, and invited former federal prosecutors in to discuss moves by Trump to protect his allies from prosecution. In a letter to Karp, more than 140 Paul Weiss alumni accused the firm of being "at the very forefront of capitulation to the Trump administration's bullying tactics." In a letter to Skadden executive partner Jeremy London, more than 80 Skadden alumni said the firm's deal with Trump "emboldened him to further undermine our democracy." After Trump targeted the law firm Jenner & Block with an executive order to shut them out of government business and deny their attorneys security clearances, the firm promptly filed a lawsuit — with the help of California-based firm Cooley, calling the order unconstitutional. "To do otherwise would mean compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA," the firm said in a statement. The Associated Press recently sued the administration, too, over its decision to bar it from White House press events for its refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, as Trump would have it. "It's really about whether the government can control what you say," AP executive editor Julie Pace wrote in the Wall Street Journal. After Trump issued an executive order purporting to require all prospective voters to show proof of citizenship — a threat to the voting rights of many American citizens who lack documents — the UCLA Voting Rights Project announced it was "doubling down" on its commitment to defending voting rights by bringing two prominent California Democrats on board: former Health and Human Services Secretary and California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, who just announced a run for governor, and former Speaker of the California Assembly Anthony Rendon, both of whom have been part of California efforts to fight Trump in the past. Chad Dunn, the project's legal director, said it is "at times breathtaking the extent to which the White House runs roughshod over enactments of Congress and plain language in the Constitution," and that "this is a unique moment" where everyone with power to resist such actions has to do so, despite the risks. "In the cause of doing what is just and right, we can't worry about the consequences," he said. At the grassroots level, resistance has been lively, particularly from less powerful groups that have long faced discrimination or fought government overreach and conservative dictates. California is home to many. Read more: California vs. Trump: What it's like to be the attorneys on the front lines Jose Gonzalez, interim program director at the progressive radio station KPFA out of Berkeley, has been writing resistance messages that air on the station frequently. "The political machine wants you tired, it wants you hopeless, it wants you silent. But we've seen this game before, we know how it plays out, and we know how to win," one recent message said. "So what do we do? We fight harder. We dig deeper. We speak louder. KPFA isn't backing down, and neither should you," it continued. "Tune in, get informed, and get ready. The resistance is on." Gonzalez said such messaging felt vital at a time when many listeners are worried and need to be reminded they aren't alone, and like a natural fit for the progressive station. "It's kind of our place to hold this position and this platform." Suzanne Ford, president of San Francisco Pride, said her organization has lost several major sponsors this year amid growing antagonism toward the LGBTQ+ community from the Trump administration, but is not backing down from its mission, selecting the theme "Queer Joy Is Resistance" for this summer's events. Ford, who is transgender, said watching powerful institutions, law firms and corporations capitulate to the Trump administration and abandon the LGBTQ+ community right when they need allies the most has been a "gut punch" — but also fresh motivation for the queer community and its true allies to show up for each other all the more. "Showing up at Pride this year," she said, "is an act of resistance." Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Capitulate or resist? Trump threats spur different responses, and alarm for democracy
Alarmed by President Trump's unprecedented effort to punish law firms he doesn't like, UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky emailed nearly 200 fellow law school deans across the country last month, asking them to join him in condemning the attacks. 'The government should not use its enormous power to exact retribution,' Chemerinsky wrote. 'As legal educators we have a special responsibility to speak out against such reprisals against lawyers.' In response, nearly 80 fellow deans signed onto what Chemerinsky viewed as a 'straightforward and non-controversial' statement of protest, including those from UCLA Law and other UC law schools. However, more than 100 others — including from prestigious law schools such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford — declined. 'A lot of people didn't respond, but certainly some responded and said that they didn't feel comfortable,' Chemerinsky said. The response showed that many in academia and the legal field 'are being chilled from speaking out' for fear of becoming the president's next target, Chemerinsky said. 'If the Trump administration does something that is unconstitutional, who is going to be there to challenge them?' he asked. 'It often won't be anyone without law firms.' In recent weeks, such concerns about Trump's intimidation tactics have exploded alongside his growing list of perceived enemies and political targets, said Chemerinsky and other critics. The more he goes after those targets, the more Americans who oppose his policies or tactics find themselves falling into separate camps — fiercely divided on how best to respond. Major law firms and universities have negotiated with Trump under duress and acquiesced to his demands, despite those demands representing clear — and arguably illegal — retribution, according to legal experts, leading civil rights organizations, free speech advocates, Democrats in Congress and some judges. The dealmakers have defended their agreements as mutually beneficial, if not necessary to avert financial ruin from Trump's focus on them. There are those who appear to be falling in line, or keeping quiet, and hoping they won't be next to draw the president's ire. Chemerinsky and other leaders in academia and the legal field said they have heard such fear firsthand from colleagues. And then there are the resisters — some who have been targeted and others who just want to stand up for others or their own democratic principles before it is too late. Some of those targeted are suing the administration over its attacks. Others are simply lambasting the administration for assaulting democracy and the rule of law. Still others are taking to the streets in protest, eager to show that communities all across the country are displeased with the Trump administration — and with those institutions they see as capitulating. 'I feel like one of the things that's really going to have an impact is protests — and big protests,' said Aimee Arost, a 55-year-old real estate agent and self-described 'unhappy Democrat' who recently joined hundreds of others outside a Tesla showroom in San Francisco to protest Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, who is a Trump advisor and Tesla's chief executive. In recent days, Arost said she has taken to posting on Facebook whenever she sees an individual or company respond to a threat from Trump, labeling each a 'fighter' or a 'folder.' She said she hoped protests would encourage the folders 'to be braver.' When late-night host Jimmy Kimmel recently asked Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) whether anything surprises him anymore, Schiff said he was 'surprised just how quickly' the Trump administration had 'created a climate of fear.' 'I wouldn't have thought it possible, but by going after universities, they're intimidating other universities. By going after certain press organizations, they're causing others to self-censor. By going after certain law firms, they're causing other lawyers to not want to take cases if they think it will be retaliated against by the administration. Companies [are] towing a Trumpian line because they're worried about losing government contracts,' said Schiff, who managed Trump's first impeachment trial and helped investigate Trump's incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Republicans in Congress have shown huge deference to Trump in recent months, and been blasted by their Democratic colleagues for ceding their power over federal purse strings. Rep. Eric Swalwell, an East Bay Democrat and prominent Trump critic, recently told The Times that Republican colleagues have told him they fear physical violence against their families if they speak out against the president. But Chemerinsky said fear of the president is clearly spreading, beyond his own party and those seeking reelection. And with that fear have come stunning deals with the administration, Chemerinsky said. Last month, the Trump administration said it was cutting $400 million in federal funds to Columbia for its 'continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students,' including by pro-Palestinian protesters on the school's New York campus. Many outside experts and liberal activists balked at the claims, suggesting they were wildly off base and accusing the Trump administration of violating the rights of pro-Palestinian activists instead — including prominent student activist Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder recently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Columbia, however, responded with a letter saying that it would comply with many of the administration's demands, including overhauling its protest and security practices and its Middle Eastern studies department. The university refuted claims it was capitulating, and defended the changes as part of a comprehensive strategy already underway to provide a safe campus environment for everyone 'while preserving our commitment to academic freedom and institutional integrity.' The university did not respond to a request for comment. Concern also arose after the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison responded to a Trump executive order barring it from government work and threatening the federal contracts of its clients by agreeing to contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Trump has championed and to represent a more politically diverse range of clients. Managing partner Brad Karp, a Democratic donor who backed Trump's opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, reportedly defended the deal in an email to the firm's lawyers as necessary for the firm's financial survival, based on a determination that fighting Trump's order in court 'would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the administration.' At least three other major firms — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Milbank — have each agreed since to provide $100 million in free services for groups and issues that Trump and the firms said they both support, such as veterans and combating antisemitism; to abandon 'illegal DEI' initiatives internally; and to represent politically diverse clients. Firm leaders also have defended the deals as pragmatic and in the best interests of themselves and their clients. The firms did not respond to requests for comment. Trump — a convicted felon who has likened himself to a king and suggested he will stay in office beyond the constitutional two-term limit — has defended his attacks on law firms as restoring fairness in the legal field and fighting back against liberal activist firms intent on undermining the conservative will of voters. He has defended his threats against Columbia and other universities as checking liberal bias in academia and defending the rights of Jewish students. Others have denounced his claims and the deals he's struck as deeply dangerous. Democrats in Congress have demanded answers from the White House and the private firms it has struck deals with about the nature of their arrangements, and invited former federal prosecutors in to discuss moves by Trump to protect his allies from prosecution. In a letter to Karp, more than 140 Paul Weiss alumni accused the firm of being 'at the very forefront of capitulation to the Trump administration's bullying tactics.' In a letter to Skadden executive partner Jeremy London, more than 80 Skadden alumni said the firm's deal with Trump 'emboldened him to further undermine our democracy.' After Trump targeted the law firm Jenner & Block with an executive order to shut them out of government business and deny their attorneys security clearances, the firm promptly filed a lawsuit — with the help of California-based firm Cooley, calling the order unconstitutional. 'To do otherwise would mean compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA,' the firm said in a statement. The Associated Press recently sued the administration, too, over its decision to bar it from White House press events for its refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, as Trump would have it. 'It's really about whether the government can control what you say,' AP executive editor Julie Pace wrote in the Wall Street Journal. After Trump issued an executive order purporting to require all prospective voters to show proof of citizenship — a threat to the voting rights of many American citizens who lack documents — the UCLA Voting Rights Project announced it was 'doubling down' on its commitment to defending voting rights by bringing two prominent California Democrats on board: former Health and Human Services Secretary and California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, who just announced a run for governor, and former Speaker of the California Assembly Anthony Rendon, both of whom have been part of California efforts to fight Trump in the past. Chad Dunn, the project's legal director, said it is 'at times breathtaking the extent to which the White House runs roughshod over enactments of Congress and plain language in the Constitution,' and that 'this is a unique moment' where everyone with power to resist such actions has to do so, despite the risks. 'In the cause of doing what is just and right, we can't worry about the consequences,' he said. At the grassroots level, resistance has been lively, particularly from less powerful groups that have long faced discrimination or fought government overreach and conservative dictates. California is home to many. Jose Gonzalez, interim program director at the progressive radio station KPFA out of Berkeley, has been writing resistance messages that air on the station frequently. 'The political machine wants you tired, it wants you hopeless, it wants you silent. But we've seen this game before, we know how it plays out, and we know how to win,' one recent message said. 'So what do we do? We fight harder. We dig deeper. We speak louder. KPFA isn't backing down, and neither should you,' it continued. 'Tune in, get informed, and get ready. The resistance is on.' Gonzalez said such messaging felt vital at a time when many listeners are worried and need to be reminded they aren't alone, and like a natural fit for the progressive station. 'It's kind of our place to hold this position and this platform.' Suzanne Ford, president of San Francisco Pride, said her organization has lost several major sponsors this year amid growing antagonism toward the LGBTQ+ community from the Trump administration, but is not backing down from its mission, selecting the theme 'Queer Joy Is Resistance' for this summer's events. Ford, who is transgender, said watching powerful institutions, law firms and corporations capitulate to the Trump administration and abandon the LGBTQ+ community right when they need allies the most has been a 'gut punch' — but also fresh motivation for the queer community and its true allies to show up for each other all the more. 'Showing up at Pride this year,' she said, 'is an act of resistance.'
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: Law School dean pens elegant defense of arrested former student's 1st Amendment rights
To the editor: Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at UC Berkeley, is absolutely correct ("Mahmoud Khalil's pro-Palestinian comments are protected speech, not grounds for deportation," op-ed, March 11). We cannot selectively apply the protections of constitutionally guaranteed free speech only to those whose speech we like or agree with. I despise hate speech of any kind, especially antisemitic speech. It is despicable, ugly and almost any pejorative one can think of. But we should defend to the death all people's right to speak freely, without fear of punishment, deportation or retribution. Otherwise our democracy is truly dead. The founding fathers weren't perfect but they were on the right track, given the times. We cannot allow this kind of government-sanctioned behavior. Diana Wolff, Rancho Palos Verdes .. To the editor: I agree with Chemerinsky that arresting former graduate student Mahmoud Khalil may have been an overreach; however, President Trump's cutting $400 million in funds to Columbia University is an excellent deterrent to universities that do not take antisemitism seriously. Many universities tolerated illegal behavior and a few of their presidents were forced to resign as a result. David Waldowski, Laguna Woods .. To the editor: Chemerinsky gives a detailed analysis of the events surrounding the activities of political activist Khalil as they relate to the 1st Amendment and free speech. Given his position as dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, I would expect Chemerinsky to be aware of the Immigration and Naturalization Act regarding activities of foreign nationals who, as the White House alleges in this case, support terrorist organizations, but he ignores the act in its entirety in his analysis. Perhaps he believes the act does not apply in this instance, but its omission creates a clearly biased approach to the issue. Scott Perley, Irvine .. To the editor: When Chemerinsky speaks, we should all listen. Trump is dangerous. He is a threat to democracy, America and our very way of life. His actions regarding Khalil are blatantly unconstitutional. MAGA supporters are thrilled, I'm sure, but will they be thrilled when he comes for them? Because he will. Scott Hughes, Westlake Village.. To the editor: For all those readers who are still applauding the arrest and detention of Khalil, even after digesting the arguments set forth in Chemerinsky's commentary, please consider the following: What are you willing to condone or think necessary the government do with all of the Americans, particularly those identifying as Jewish, who wrote, spoke, marched and demonstrated in support of the very same causes as those expressed by Khalil? In the course of forming a thoughtful response, I would suggest reading "First They Came" in the mirror, one more time. Ted Rosenblatt, Hancock Park This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
