Latest news with #DueProcess
TechCrunch
a day ago
- Politics
- TechCrunch
Library of Congress explains how parts of US Constitution vanished from its website
The Library of Congress has given a fuller explanation as to why large sections of the U.S. Constitution suddenly vanished from its official website. As TechCrunch previously reported, parts of Section 8, as well as the entirety of Section 9 and Section 10, were deleted from Article 1 of the Constitution on the U.S. government's official website over the past month. The changes to the sections, which pertained to the Congressional powers, the rights of individual states, and the rights to due process, sparked alarm at a time when the Trump administration has threatened to suspend habeas corpus. After the changes were reported, the Library of Congress tweeted that the sections were missing due to a 'coding error.' TechCrunch reached out to the Library of Congress and received more insight into the issue: 'The online Constitution Annotated is an educational tool which includes discussions of the Supreme Court's latest opinions linked to the text of the Constitution. When updating the site to reflect our constitutional scholars' analysis of the impact of the latest cases on Article I, Sections 8-10, the team inadvertently removed an XML tag,' Bill Ryan, the director of communications for the Library of Congress, told TechCrunch. 'This prevented publication of everything in Article I after the middle of Section 8. The problem has been corrected, and our updated constitutional analysis is now available. We are taking steps to prevent a recurrence in the future,' said Ryan. XML is a commonly used markup language used by the Library of Congress to format its website. A missing closing tag could plausibly result in missing text from the website, as anything outside of the tag would be ignored. The full text of the Constitution has now been reinstated on the Library of Congress's website.
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Rock Band Rips Kristi Noem's DHS For Using Its Song With NSFW 3-Word Demand
The Black Rebel Motorcycle Club issued a blistering condemnation of the Kristi Noem-led Department of Homeland Security, alleging the unauthorized use of its recording of 'God's Gonna Cut You Down' in a government-produced video. The rock band told the DHS to 'go f... yourselves.' The track, a folk-gospel song popularized by Johnny Cash, was featured in what the San Francisco rock band slammed as a 'propaganda video.' In a scathing public statement directed at the DHS, the band wrote on social media: 'It has come to our attention that the Department of Homeland Security is improperly using our recording of 'God's Gonna Cut You Down' in your latest propaganda video. It's obvious that you don't respect Copyright Law and Artist Rights any more than you respect Habeas Corpus and Due Process rights, not to mention the separation of Church and State per the U.S. Constitution.' The group continued: 'For the record, we hereby order @DHSgov to cease and desist the use of our recording and demand that you immediately pull down your video.' And it witheringly concluded: 'Oh, and go f... yourselves.' The band joins a growing list of musicians who have pushed back against the unauthorized use of their music, especially by Donald Trump and his White House, ranging from Adele to The Rolling Stones. Paul Krugman Exposes The Flaw At The Heart Of Trump's Cruelest Policy Chelsea's Photo After Trump Gate-Crash Is Being Read As A Master Class In Subtle Shade Fox News Star Hits Trump With A Cold Truth About His Relationship With Putin
NBC News
04-07-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
6-year-old Honduran boy with leukemia who had been seized by ICE is back in L.A.
A 6-year-old Honduran boy with leukemia whose arrest sparked a public outcry after he, his mother and sister were seized by ICE agents and sent to a Texas detention center is back in Los Angeles, one of the family's lawyers said Friday. The family, which had been held for a month in the Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas, was released on Wednesday by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a lawsuit was filed on their behalf in San Antonio federal court. 'We were in the process of putting together a reply brief explaining why the government was wrong to hold them when we learned they were being released,' Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, told NBC News. 'ICE released the family without a court order.' The family was dispatched from the detention center to a shelter in south Texas, Mukherjee said. 'From there, they were put on a plane today and flown to LAX, where they were reunited with their family in Los Angeles,' Mukherjee said. Mukherjee said 'public pressure' over the plight of this family and the media coverage 'helped free this family.' Their release 'demonstrates the power we have when we fight back against harmful, un-American policies,' attorney Kate Gibson Kumar of the Texas Civil Rights Project, which also represented the family, said on the group's Facebook page. 'The practice of courthouse arrests is a blatant disregard for those lawfully seeking safety through the government's own processes, and an even bigger disregard for our Constitution and the protections it provides, including Due Process,' wrote Gibson Kumar. NBC News has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment and an explanation of whether the agency will continue trying to deport that family back to Honduras. Gibson Kumar's organization and the Columbia University Immigrants' Rights Clinic sued ICE seeking to win the family's release after they were seized following their May 29 asylum hearing in Los Angeles. The mother had been instructed to bring her children, who are out of school, to the hearing, Gibson Kumar said last week. 'They arrested the family in the hallway as they were leaving,' Gibson Kumar said. 'The children were really scared. They were crying.' While in detention, the 6-year-old, identified as N.M.Z. in a habeas corpus complaint, also missed a June 5 medical appointment, according to a court filing. DHS had insisted repeatedly that the boy was examined several times while he and his family were locked up. In a post on X, DHS called allegations of medical neglect 'fake news.' 'ICE always prioritizes the health, safety and well-being of all detainees in its care,' DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said last week. The little boy was still living in Honduras when he was diagnosed at age 3 with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a kind of blood cancer that can progress rapidly but is considered curable in most children. Mukherjee told NBC News earlier that when she visited the family in the facility, the 6-year-old exhibited some conditions that are known symptoms of his cancer. 'He has easy bruising,' Mukherjee said. 'His right leg had a lot of black-and-blue marks on it, his left leg had black and blue marks on it, he had black-and-blue marks on his arms. He has bone pain occasionally. He has lost his appetite. These are all pretty concerning things.' The family entered the U.S. legally on Oct. 26 when they applied for asylum with the now-defunct CBP One app and were given parole status. The family declared it had fled Honduras after being subjected to 'imminent and menacing death threats,' according to the habeas corpus petition. The U.S. government determined they were not a flight risk and not a danger to the community and the mother was not put on an electronic monitor. DHS gave the family a notice to appear at the May 29 court hearing to pursue their claims for humanitarian relief, Mukherjee said. Meanwhile, according to their attorneys, the family set down roots in Los Angeles and the children enrolled in public school and were learning English. They also attended church every Sunday. But after President Donald Trump returned to the White House, his administration directed judges to dismiss the cases of immigrants who have been in the country for less than two years, so ICE could more quickly deport them. After the judge abruptly dismissed the family's asylum request, the ICE agents were waiting for them in the hallway when the mother and her children left the courtroom.
Boston Globe
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Trump administration appeals order protecting Harvard's foreign students
International students make up more than 27 percent of Harvard's total enrollment. Advertisement Harvard argued that Trump was unlawfully using his power to 'pursue a government vendetta' against the school. It has two lawsuits pending against the administration; one over foreign students and the other focused on billions of dollars in government-funded research cuts. Burroughs, who is presiding over the lawsuit related to foreign students filed in May, issued another preliminary injunction on June 20 halting the administration's effort to prevent Harvard from enrolling foreign students. Yet, later that day, the president The president's announcement came after the Trump administration announced in May it was immediately revoking Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students, and ordered those already attending the school to either transfer or leave the country. Advertisement Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said the punishment was in response to Harvard's failure to provide information the administration had demanded on April 16 about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus. However, in its lawsuit, Harvard called it 'the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students.' The administration has been locked in an escalating legal and financial battle with Harvard since April when the elite school rejected a list of demands to address what the administration says is a longstanding culture of antisemitism, racial discrimination, and political bias at the school. Harvard's suit alleges that the administration demanded an unprecedented amount of information related to international students, then claimed Harvard's response was 'insufficient,' without explaining why or citing any regulation that Harvard had failed to comply with. Harvard alleges that the revocation of its ability to enroll international students is 'a blatant violation' of its First Amendment and Due Process rights and argues it would have an immediate and devastating impact on the university Trump has accused Harvard and other elite universities of fomenting anti-American ideology and failing to Shelley Murphy can be reached at
Newsweek
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Clarence Thomas Decries Supreme Court Intervention
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas decried the Supreme Court's involvement in a death row case in his dissent from the case on Thursday. The court determined that Texas death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez has a right to sue a local district attorney with a civil rights complaint for failing to do a DNA test at the scene of the murder for which he was convicted, but insists he did not commit. Dissenting against the court's majority opinion, Thomas said, "Intervention serves no purpose other than to exacerbate the already egregious delays endemic to capital litigation," and said the court did not stick to the original interpretation of the Due Process clause to come to this conclusion. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is seen before swearing in Pam Bondi as attorney general in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., on February 5, 2025. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is seen before swearing in Pam Bondi as attorney general in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., on February 5, 2025. Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images Why It Matters Several cases on the Due Process clause are in the courts right now based on the Trump administration's assertions that undocumented migrants do not have the right to due process, and will likely end up in front of the Supreme Court. If Justice Thomas does not see having access to DNA testing in a trial as a part of due process, he may also side with the Trump administration's limited interpretation of the clause. What To Know Gutierrez was found guilty in 1999 of the murder of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison. He confessed he had been planning on robbing her house, but insists to this day he did not kill her, and that DNA evidence will show he was not at the scene of the crime. His lawyers successfully argued to the court that he could sue District Attorney Luis Saenz. This is due to Texas's Article 64, which says that convicts are allowed to request DNA samples if they can establish they "would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing." This undated photo provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice shows inmate Ruben Gutierrez. This undated photo provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice shows inmate Ruben Gutierrez. Texas Department of Criminal Justice via AP The case was brought to the Supreme Court, as Gutierrez's lawyers said he had been denied federal civil rights by being denied the right to sue under Texas's Article 64. However, Justice Thomas disagreed. In his dissent, Thomas said, "The Fourteenth Amendment does not protect Gutierrez's asserted 'liberty interest.' As originally understood, 'liberty' in the Fourteenth Amendment likely referred only to freedom from physical restraint. It did not include entitlements to government-created benefits." He said that this ruling creates a "tool for obstruction," which is getting in the way of Gutierrez's sentence, and slowing down capital punishment in the state of Texas, adding, "There is every reason to think that the ultimate claim of actual innocence on which Gutierrez's case rests is baseless." Thomas is referred to as a textualist, and often rules based on interpretations of the Constitution as of when it was written, lending to more conservative rulings. What People Are Saying Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent: "The Due Process Clause protects an individual's natural liberty from government interference. It does not guarantee entitlements to government benefits like Texas's voluntarily adopted post-conviction procedures. By intervening to revive this suit, the Court facilitates precisely the 'unjustified delay' that it is supposed to prevent in capital cases." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her ruling in favor of Gutierrez: "Gutierrez has standing to challenge Texas's DNA testing procedures under the Due Process Clause." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is set to rule on several landmark cases on June 27, but these cases do not involve the Trump administration's interpretation of due process. These cases will arrive at the Supreme Court either later in 2025 or in 2026.
