Latest news with #DemocraticAttorneysGeneral
Fox News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
'Dangerous and illegal': Democrat AGs sue Trump over effort to use SNAP to locate migrants
New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday said she is helping lead a group of 20 Democratic attorneys general in suing the Trump administration over its demands that they turn over information about food stamp recipients and applicants in their state—an effort she excoriated as a "dangerous and illegal overreach" by the administration to unlawfully locate and track down illegal immigrants. The lawsuit, led by James, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, comes after the Trump administration demanded states turn over detailed personal information related to recipients and applicants of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, before July 30. The Trump administration has threatened to withhold SNAP funding from states who fail to comply with the July 30 deadline—teeing up a high-stakes, eleventh-hour court clash between Trump officials and leaders from 20 Democratic-led states. Speaking to reporters on a press call Monday, James and other attorneys general took umbrage with the new SNAP data-sharing requirement, describing it as an "illegal data grab" designed to intimidate vulnerable communities and help track down migrants who might be subject to deportation. "This administration is attempting to use this program as a tool in their cruel and chaotic targeting of immigrants," James said. The lawsuit is not the first time James, a longtime Trump foe, has sparred with Trump in court since the start of his second presidential term. To date, she's joined Democratic attorneys general in more than a dozen other lawsuits challenging his early actions. Bonta, for his part, described the USDA's new demands as a cruel bait-and-switch from the Trump administration. He noted that the data the administration is allegedly attempting to mine comes from a decades-old aid program designed to help ensure that low-income families have access to food. "SNAP recipients provided this information to get help to feed their families—not to be entered into a government surveillance database, or be used as targets for the president's inhumane immigration agenda," Bonta said on Tuesday. "This kind of targeting doesn't make America safer. It threatens kids' access to school meals, it jeopardizes wildfire survivors' access to relief," he added. "And it sends a chilling message: if you reach out for help, you may be punished for it." The trio also rejected the assertion that USDA's request for the additional SNAP data, first announced in March, was made under the guise of helping eliminate "waste and fraud" within the federal government—noting that the SNAP program historically has "very low rates of fraud." Rather, the Democratic attorneys general described the demand for information as a "flat-out illegal" attempt by the Trump administration to unlawfully obtain personal information about immigrants living in their states. They noted that, in addition to threatening to withhold SNAP funds, Trump officials have expanded the amount of data that states are required to submit about the individuals in the program. The new USDA demands, released last week, require states to provide a list of individuals who have applied or are currently receiving SNAP benefits, in addition to other information such as a list of their immigration statuses in the U.S., and information including their marital statuses, their residential and mailing addresses, and education and employment history, among other things. Each of the attorneys general said Monday that the program would require them to share the personal information of millions of residents in their states, dating back to 2020, and bypassing federal laws that dictate how such information can be used. "This is not for research," James said. "They are basically trying to weaponize the SNAP program against immigrant communities, in violation of the law." California Attorney General Rob Bonta, for his part, described the push by the administration as an attempt to "hunt down" and obtain personal information for millions of residents in their states. "They're bypassing legal procedures, ignoring privacy protections, and demanding data that federal law explicitly says can only be used for administering the SNAP program," Bonta said, noting that they "ignored hundreds of public comments pointing out major flaws in the government's plans." The lawsuit comes as James and other Democratic-led states have taken aim at Trump's sweeping policy goals and executive orders in court, which they describe as excessive and unconstitutional. Since his inauguration in January, Bonta noted, Democrat-led states have filed 35 lawsuits against the Trump administration. Bonta said Monday that the USDA requirement is a "clear violation" of the "Spending Clause, federal privacy statutes, and the USDA's own authority," prompting them to file suit. "President Trump made promises to the American people and now he's breaking them," the group said Monday. "He's rewriting the rules, targeting the most vulnerable and expecting states to fall in line."
Reuters
5 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
US agencies pause effort to block immigrant social services in states that sued
NEW YORK, July 25 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration agreed on Friday to pause efforts to block immigrants who are living in the U.S. illegally from accessing certain federally funded social services in 20 Democratic-led states that sued over the policy changes. The U.S. Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, and Labor agreed to wait until at least September 3 to enforce the changes that affect programs providing early childhood education, food and healthcare. The agencies also agreed not to enforce the changes retroactively in New York, California, Illinois, or the other states that sued, according to an agreement filed in Rhode Island federal court, where the states had filed their lawsuit. New York Attorney General Letitia James said the agreement preserves social services "that millions of New Yorkers rely on to survive." "These policy changes threaten essential lifelines like health care, education, and nutrition assistance programs for hardworking families in New York and nationwide," James said in a statement. "My office will continue to fight for these programs and services on behalf of all who need them." The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More than 20 Democratic attorneys general had sued on Monday arguing that the policies, which implement an immigration-focused executive order from Trump, are unconstitutional and that the Republican president issued them without following the required federal rulemaking process. The policy changes require programs to check participants' immigration status before giving access to essential public services like Head Start, Meals on Wheels, child welfare programs, domestic violence shelters, housing assistance, mental health treatment, food banks, and community health centers. The states said the directives threatened to pull federal funding from states and could force some programs to shutter altogether. The requirements went into effect almost immediately after the directives were issued, leaving the programs scrambling to find ways to comply so they can stay open, the states said. States have always needed to verify a person's lawful immigration status before allowing them to access certain federal programs, like Medicaid. But federal agencies have previously taken the position that states did not have to verify immigration status for some programs, like soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and crisis counseling centers, that received federal funding but were intended to be "open to all," according to the lawsuit.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Safety measure? Or intimidation tactic? Masked ICE agents spark the debate
Immigration agents are increasingly hiding their faces behind masks, a move that is drawing new criticism as the White House ramps up detention and deportations and prepares to dispatch more officers. A group of Democratic attorneys general has now asked Congress to pass a law forcing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to routinely operate without masks, arguing the policy of letting agents operate anonymously has sparked multiple police impersonators. Democratic members of Congress have also pushed the administration to make ICE agents more readily identifiable. Federal authorities say ICE agents need to conceal their identities to protect their families from retaliation as they execute President Donald Trump's orders to conduct the largest mass deportation in history. Attacks on the rise: ICE agents hurt as assaults surge 700% amid aggressive enforcement Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said gang members and Antifa-affiliated groups have been publicizing agents' faces and home addresses. She said agents need to mask up to remain safe, especially when there have now been multiple attacks on federal immigration sites and individual agents. "We will prosecute those who dox ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law. These criminals are taking the side of vicious cartels and human traffickers," Noem said in a July 11 statement. "We won't allow it in America." 'Pissing off ordinary Americans' Critics say masked agents are being used largely as an intimidation tactic that has little grounding in actual officer safety. They fear it's instead weakening bonds between the public and law enforcement. The American Civil Liberties Union also argues the lack of accountability exacerbates racial profiling by unidentifiable officers. "Secret police tactics like this erode trust in law enforcement and allows criminals to dangerously impersonate officers ‒ which is already happening," said Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat. Retired California police supervisor Diane Goldstein said masked agents are exacerbating tensions because there's virtually no public accountability when law enforcement operates anonymously. Goldstein was a police lieutenant in the Los Angeles area and is now executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a nonprofit that works with communities to help reform policing. "You know who doesn't wear masks? Judges. District attorneys. Public defenders. State and local law enforcement, except for very narrow carveouts," Goldstein said. "The safety issue is just an excuse. The administration doesn't seem to understand that it's their heavy-handed tactics that are increasing the level of danger to their officers. They are pissing off ordinary Americans." Harder to 'tell the difference between a bad guy and a good guy' The issue of wearing masks in public to provide anonymity has a long history in the United States, and some states ban protesters from wearing them. Those laws typically trace their origin to KKK marches, but have more recently been used by authorities to limit mask-wearing by pro-Palestinian protesters, often on college campuses, according the the ACLU. Trump himself has criticized protesters who wear masks, posting on Truth Social on June 8, "... from now on, masks will not be allowed to be worn at protests. What do these people have to hide, and why???" Goldstein said Trump's comment gets at the heart of why police officers should rarely hide their identity. Modern policing traces its origins to Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Policing, developed in the early 1800s to guide England's new Metropolitan Police. The "Peelian principles" centered the approach that effective policing depends on community cooperation, trust, and the concept that officers are part of the community, not standing apart from it. "Everything they are saying goes against everything law enforcement has been taught about how we should serve others," Goldstein said of the masked agents. "Right now, Homeland Security is operating like thugs and criminals. And when we can't tell the difference between a bad guy and a good guy..." This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Safety measure or intimidation tactic? Masked ICE agents spark debate Solve the daily Crossword
Reuters
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Democratic AGs sue to bar immigration requirements for Head Start and other federal programs
CHICAGO, July 21 (Reuters) - More than 20 Democratic attorneys general on Monday sued to block a Trump administration policy that bars migrants living in the U.S. illegally from accessing federally-funded programs for low-income families that provide early childhood education, food and healthcare, saying it could force the programs to shutter altogether. The attorneys general from states, including New York, California and Illinois, filed the lawsuit in federal court in Providence, Rhode Island, asking the court to block policies announced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Justice and several other agencies outlined in memos released earlier this month. They argue the policies, which implement an immigration-focused executive order from Republican President Donald Trump are unconstitutional and were issued without following the required federal rulemaking process. The directives require programs to check participants' immigration status before providing services, or risk losing critical federal funding, the lawsuit said. The requirements went into effect almost immediately after the directives were issued, leaving the programs scrambling to find ways to comply so they can stay open, it said. Immigrants in the country illegally have generally been ineligible for most federal benefits, but until the memos were issued, some programs providing healthcare, food and early childcare education were not treated as restricted federal benefits. Additionally, the policy also applies to some people who are in the country legally, like those with student visas, and could harm U.S. citizens without government identification, they said. New York Attorney General Letitia James said her state's Head Start program receives approximately $700 million in federal funding to provide early childhood education to nearly 43,000 children. Many providers in the program have said they may not have the capacity to screen participants' immigration status, putting the funding at risk. 'This is a baseless attack on some of our country's most effective and inclusive public programs, and we will not let it stand,' New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. The DOJ did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for HHS said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. In a statement earlier this month, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr said his agency was making the change to disincentivize illegal immigration. The lawsuit asks the court to halt the policy and vacate it. The agencies announced the policy beginning on July 10, saying it was part of their effort to follow a February Trump executive order. The executive order, 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,' said a 1996 federal law governing federal benefits prevented their use by people in the country illegally. The attorneys general said the Trump administration has misinterpreted the law, applying it to entire programs rather than to individual benefits. The policy also violates the U.S. Constitution's Spending Clause, which requires the federal government to provide fair notice of any conditions on federal funding before states accept it, the group said.
Al Arabiya
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Judge limits a small part of a court order blocking Trump's election overhaul as lawsuits continue
A federal judge on Friday modified part of a previous ruling that blocked much of President Donald Trump's sweeping executive order seeking to overhaul elections in the US. The minor change affects just one aspect of a preliminary injunction that US District Court Judge Denise J. Casper granted on June 13 in a case filed by Democratic state attorneys general. The judge said Friday that the part of Trump's order directing certain federal agencies to assess people's US citizenship when they ask for voter registration forms will now only be blocked in the 19 states that filed the lawsuit. Election law experts said the modification will have little if any practical effect because a judge in a different lawsuit filed against the executive order also blocked the federal agencies from obeying the mandate in all 50 states. 'If there are two partially overlapping orders, the effect of changing one of them would not change what is binding in the other,' said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles. Friday's order follows a US Supreme Court decision in an unrelated case that judges are limited in granting nationwide injunctions. Government lawyers pointed to that ruling in arguing the court needed to narrow the scope of the injunction in the elections case. The 19 Democratic attorneys general who filed the case told the judge they would not object to the narrower scope. The rest of Casper's initial preliminary injunction against other aspects of the election executive order remains intact. In June, the judge blocked various parts of Trump's sweeping order, including a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voting form and a requirement that mailed ballots be received rather than just postmarked by Election Day. The government continues to fight the attorney general's lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Boston, and has a motion to dismiss it. The Department of Justice on Friday did not reply to multiple requests for comment. The development comes as other lawsuits challenging Trump's executive order on elections continue to play out. That includes the one with the other preliminary injunction filed by Democrats and civil rights groups. It also includes another from Washington and Oregon, where voting is done almost entirely by mail ballot.
